Research Paper Shows How Useless It Is To Require ISPs To Be Copyright Cops

from the why-do-i-get-the-feeling-this-will-be-ignored dept

A bunch of folks have been sending in the link to Boing Boing's report about a new research paper highlighting just how useless, ineffective and damaging it will be if governments or the entertainment industry force ISPs to start trying to crack down on file sharing. The researchers make a pretty compelling case (though, certainly, I was inclined to agree with them going in) that any such attempt will not do a damn thing to slow down file sharing, but will represent a significant risk of violating users' privacy or disconnecting them from the internet for perfectly innocent actions. So, the next time we hear politicians pushing such a solution, it might be worth sending them a copy of this report -- though, it probably won't do much good if that politician has received enough campaign contributions from the entertainment industry.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Some ISPs Push Back On RIAA Plan

from the good-for-them dept

While there was big news on Friday concerning the RIAA's supposed plan to stop suing everyone in favor of having ISPs police networks for the RIAA, it seems that some ISPs are clearly not on board with the plan (and, in fact, the details of the plan seem rather lacking). News.com has the story of one smaller ISP that has been responding to every RIAA notification by sending a request back for a billing address where he can send an invoice for the time it takes to respond to takedown requests. For the most part, the RIAA simply ignores these responses, though in some cases its representatives seem to feign ignorance, claiming "In regards to billing, we fail to understand what you mean with that!"

At the same time, it appears that Verizon is one large ISP refusing to cooperate. This is not really that surprising, given that Verizon was really the only major ISP to stand up to the RIAA's original campaign of demanding the identity associated with IP addresses without first filing a lawsuit (the end result of which was the RIAA's filing large lawsuits against multiple "john and jane does" in order to get the names). Verizon has also pushed back in the past when other big ISPs like AT&T seemed willing to act as copyright cops for the RIAA.

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Senate Wants To Send US Copyright Cops To Foreign Countries

from the from-all-sides... dept

With the ProIP bill moving forward and trade representatives hard at work on an ACTA treaty to force customs agents to search for copyright violations at the border, Against Monopoly points out that Senators Max Baucus and Orrin Hatch have introduced a new bill having to do with intellectual property overseas. The bill would have the US Trade Representative draw up piracy "Priority Watch List," allowing the White House take actions against countries that don't get in line, including placing officials at foreign embassies with the sole purpose of enforcing US IP rights. Yup, that's correct. The US may soon be sending copyright cops to other countries. This actually seems like a repeat of a bill introduced last year, but it still should worry other countries -- especially when the US has a history of creating such priority watch lists of IP offenders in the past -- and that list is usually laughable, in that it accuses countries that have much stricter copyright laws than the US itself.

12 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Justice Department Says It Doesn't Want To Be Hollywood's Police Force; Senate Removes That Provision

from the good-for-them dept

This doesn't come as a total surprise, because the Bush Administration had said something similar last year about the House's ProIP bill, but the Justice Department has come out very strongly against Senator Leahy's proposed bill that would let the Justice Department take on civil copyright lawsuits, effectively becoming Hollywood's private enforcement agency. What's impressive is how much of the argument seems to mimic the EFF's concerns:

We strongly oppose Title I of the bill, which not only authorizes the Attorney General to pursue civil remedies for copyright infringement, but to secure "restitution" damages and remit them to the private owners of infringed copyrights. First, civil copyright enforcement has always been the responsibility and prerogative of private copyright holders, and U.S. law already provides them with effective legal tools to protect their rights....

Second, Title 1's departure from the settled framework above could result in Department of Justice prosecutors serving as pro bono lawyers for private copyright holders regardless of their resources. In effect, taxpayer-supported Department lawyers would pursue lawsuits for copyright holders, with monetary recovery going to industry.

Third, the Department of Justice has limited resources to dedicate to particular issues, and civil enforcement actions would occur at the expense of criminal actions, which only the Department of Justice may bring. In an era of fiscal responsibility, the resources of the Department of Justice should be used for the public benefit, not on behalf of particular industries that can avail themselves of the existing civil enforcement provisions.

The "good" news is that this statement has apparently convinced the Senate to remove that part of the bill. Senator Ron Wyden introduced an amendment that took out the part where the White House gets to handle civil cases, but the rest of the bill still moves forward (and don't be surprised to see future efforts push to get the Justice Department back in on private enforcement).

10 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Congress Moves Forward With Plan To Make Universities Copyright Cops

from the first-ISPs,-then-colleges dept

For a little over a year, there have been stories about how the entertainment industry has been pressuring Congress to make universities responsible for stopping copyright infringement on their network. This got a lot of attention late last year when Congress tried to tie such a mandate to a provision granting financial aid to students. In other words, the threat was that if universities didn't act to stop file sharing, their students wouldn't be eligible for financial aid. This got plenty of attention, and the bill never passed. The most interesting part of it, though, was that much of the reasoning for the bill was driven by MPAA claims that 44% of all illegal file sharing took place on college campuses.

There was just one problem with that: the number was completely wrong. Earlier this year, the MPAA admitted that it had made a small mistake, and the number was actually something like 15% (and even that could be argued).

You might think that would allow our Congressional representatives to focus their attention on something a bit more important -- but with super low approval ratings, the people they actually represent matter a lot less than their biggest campaign donors. So, of course, the bill to turn universities into copyright cops is back once again. It is somewhat toned down, but will still require universities to basically be the mouthpieces of the entertainment industry, repeating their propaganda and ignoring that the problem is the industry's obsolete business models rather than any legal issue.

However, as you read William Patry's post on this above, you see that the MPAA is also positioning the legislative history on the law so that next year or so, they'll be able to come back and insist on mandatory filters at universities. Basically, it looks like the MPAA tried to bite off too big of a chunk when it pushed for this law last year, so this year, it's taking half a bite, but getting everything ready to get the rest of what it wants next year.

17 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Why Does The Recording Industry Decide Who Gets Threatening Letters From ISPs?

from the biased-much? dept

With the UK heading down the slippery slope of making ISPs into copyright cops, the folks over at TorrentFreak are pointing out what might be the most troublesome part: the decision as to who deserves a threat letter comes from the recording industry. Yes, BPI (the UK version of the RIAA) gets to tell the ISPs who's violating copyrights, and there's no due diligence to make sure that the info is accurate. In fact, if history is any indication, the accusations will be based on highly questionable evidence. TorrentFreak asks, reasonably, that if the ISPs are required to send letters out based on this info from a clearly biased party, shouldn't the BPI be forced to open up its process to make sure that it's fair and accurate?

5 Comments | Leave a Comment..

UK ISPs Move Down The Slippery Slope Of Becoming Copyright Cops

from the slippery-slopes dept

Some UK politicians have been pushing to get ISPs to play the role of copyright cops for an unclear reason. It appears they've bought into the misleading and incorrect claim by the music industry that somehow ISPs are responsible for the record labels own failure to adapt its business model. So despite claims from some ISPs that wouldn't sign up for such a plan, and wouldn't kick users off the internet, a bunch of those UK ISPs are now promising to play the role of copyright cops anyway -- and this even includes the ISPs who insisted they wouldn't go down this road.

It's unclear why exactly they are agreeing to voluntarily waste their time acting on behalf of an obsolete industry's business model, but the misguided threats from UK politicians probably helped move things along. Either way, this starts things down the incredibly slippery slope of making ISPs responsible for policing the actions of users. For years, most governments have realized what a bad idea this is, but suddenly in many countries that concept is falling away, and the end results will not be positive for the internet -- as plenty of perfectly legitimate activities are about to get blocked in an overzealous effort to prop up a few obsolete business models.

Already there are rumors spreading that there is behind-the-scenes maneuvering for the next big step to occur: making all internet users pay an annual "music tax" fee. The original article on this agreement has someone from BPI denying that such a tax is under discussion, but some UK politicians seem ready to introduce it anyway -- and folks like Billy Bragg's manager, Peter Jenner, are claiming victory. And even a music person industry admits that this is a slippery slope (though, he thinks it's in the right direction), saying that this is: "a first step, and a very big step, in what we all acknowledge is going to be quite a long process."

The BPI representative backs this up by noting that his goal isn't to take steps towards ending file sharing, but to end it altogether: "There is not an acceptable level of file-sharing. Musicians need to be paid like everyone else." As for the artists who benefit from unauthorized file sharing? That doesn't seem to occur to the BPI. And, if musicians really need to "be paid like everyone else," how come the rest of us don't get paid for the work we did 50 years ago? How come if everyone else picks a business model that the market rejects, we don't get all the other companies in the value chain and the government to artificially prop up that business model for us? You know, we work pretty hard here at Techdirt to make a living, but apparently "everyone else" just complains that their business model isn't working and has ISPs take care of it for them. Can we now get UK ISPs to send "warning" letters to everyone who reads Techdirt to start telling them they should send us money? That would be a much easier business model.

11 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Virgin: We Won't Cut Off File Sharers; Sends Envelope Saying 'We May Cut You Off'

from the mixed-messages dept

After reports said that UK broadband ISP Virgin Media would become the recording industry's copyright cop, Virgin came out denying it, saying that kicking users off the internet was draconian. However, it later admitted that it would send warning letters to people, based on the flimsy evidence used by the recording industry. Now Virgin has started sending out those letters, claiming that it's just sending letters and that there is "absolutely no possibility" that it would ban file sharers from connecting to the internet. That must explain why it sent the first batch of warning letters to people in envelopes that read: "Important. If you don't read this, your broadband could be disconnected." Absolutely no possibility, huh? It's not necessarily bad that Virgin would let customers know that the recording industry had spotted their IP -- but it seems wrong to send out these messages that completely buy into the industry's spin on what that means. And, given how hard the recording industry is pushing governments to make "three strikes laws," that "absolutely no possibility" is looking less absolute and more possible every day.

8 Comments | Leave a Comment..

UK Gov't Tells ISPs They Need To Play Copyright Cops For Record Labels

from the due-process-means-nothing dept

Back in February, we noted that the UK government was putting a lot of pressure on ISPs to "voluntarily" agree to act as copyright cops for the entertainment industry -- sending out industry threat letters to users (often based on flimsy evidence) and even kicking off users who are "accused" of unauthorized file sharing three times (the infamous "three strikes") policy. While the government backed off a little, saying that it was up to the industry to work out the details, apparently the "tone" has changed and the government is back to putting serious pressure on ISPs to cave in to entertainment industry demands: "The British government just put a gun to our head," is how one ISP exec put it. That means they were basically told to give in or legislation would show up forcing them to give in. Chalk another one up for the entertainment industry lobby, effectively getting governments to protect an obsolete business model once again.

9 Comments | Leave a Comment..

European Parliament Rejects IFPI Plan To Make ISPs Copyright Cops

from the good-for-them dept

There's been a huge lobbying campaign going on throughout much of the world to get local governments to put pressure on ISPs to require them to kick those accused of file sharing off of the internet. It had been worrisome that these efforts actually seemed to be getting some traction in both France and the UK despite vehement opposition from many people. It appears that the opposition has started to get its point of view across. The EU Parliament has now rejected a plan to criminalize file sharing and to implement a "three strikes and you're off the internet" policy. The vote itself isn't binding, but suggests how the EU Parliament feels. While France has already put in place such a law, there was some feeling that France would push to make similar laws enforced European-wide. This vote should put a damper on those plans.

8 Comments | Leave a Comment..