Comments on: ISPs Sell You Out So They Can Sell You Shows

By: Verizon May Cozy Up to the RIAA – GigaOM

Verizon May Cozy Up to the RIAA – GigaOM — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:07:48 +0000

[...] only notify subscribers that they may have erred; it will not threaten them with disconnection. We covered this trend last March when AT&T began experimenting with these letters: AT&T reached out today to let [...]

By: UK Wants to Zap File-Sharers

UK Wants to Zap File-Sharers — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 17:40:26 +0000

[...] to slow down repeat offenders’ Internet connections if infringement warning letters — which have been very effective in the past — didn’t bring down piracy activity by 70 percent by 2012. But Lord Peter Mandelson [...]

By: Sven

Sven — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:23:19 +0000

How many of you have actually reviewed the DMCA legislation? It’s aggregious!

I understand, respect & believe in the value of copyrights. However, I believe this law oversteps many boundaries – including the rights of copyright holders, consumers and service providers.

DMCA **forces** any ISP to act on infringement notices or directly assume the responsibility as if they condone (or actually committed) the copyright infringements. This has **nothing** to do with DPI or bandwidth throttling. “Acting” on a notice requires the ISP to present the complaint (as received by the copyright holder/agent) to the customer. This notice explains the alleged infringement (i.e. time, date, id’s copyrighted material(s), etc), includes a cease & desist statement, and describes how the “alleged infringer” can contest the claim with the copyright holder.

The service provider, also per DMCA, is directly tasked with preventing the user from continuing to commit these alleged offenses, or again, face potential legal action. Depending on the ISP, polices to comply with this seem to range from direct take downs to “2 or 3 strikes your out” before a disconnect. All this is very cumbersome and completely third party to the ISP – the real issue is between the copyright holder and the “alleged infringer”.

DMCA includes many other chilling & controversial rules and impositions. It was strongly influenced by the copyright holder community (i.e. big studios & recording labels) and in my opinion, insufficiently protects the rights of consumers & service providers. In fact, it likely makes anyone (possibly you reading this post) an “infringer” if you’ve ever ripped a CD to your MP3 player. DMCA forces ISPs into the role of “policeman” – but not the jury; and according to DMCA, “alleged infringers” are guilty until proven innocent. This is neither desired nor welcomed policy by ISPs.

This policy has been reviewed by telecommunications & copyright attorneys at state & federal levels. Until this law can be changed to protect the rights of all parties, this is how things are going to work.

By: Stacey Higginbotham

Stacey Higginbotham — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:07:13 +0000

Dwhit, I’m not arguing that theft is justified, merely that the role of ISPs as enforcers is not a role that they should not take on. That’s the role of the government and courts.

By: dwhit

dwhit — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:25:47 +0000

Okay Stacey… how about I start stealing all the content and posts from all of Om’s web blogs and republish them under my own brand?

HOW BOUT THEM COOKIES?

And the rest of you should have your cars checked for the homing devices the government has been installing so they can track you since 2003. GET A CLUE FOLKS. Move on already.

What’s next? Trying to repatriate everyone in prison cause its not fair?

Seriously.

By: Marco

Marco — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:42:56 +0000

AT&T sold out to the government in 1913. They’ve been a good friend to the Feds and big business ever since.

By: Manny

Manny — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 05:27:55 +0000

So it is ok with you that an ISP can do deep packet sniffing on your data? It is ok for an ISP to “shape” data? It is ok for an ISP to be able to tell us what kinds of data we can or cannot access at our own risk? Last time I checked I pay for internet “access”. I don’t pay them to be my mother. I currently am an AT&T customer, and I have already started to research for another provider. AT&T’s actions are unforgivable, and totally out of line. We have to deal with governments and non-government bodies constantly scanning my data. I don’t need my ISP to be doing the same.

By: boricua_hasta_la_muerte

boricua_hasta_la_muerte — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 04:34:27 +0000

*snip* The AT&T spokesman went to great pains to stress how grateful some customers are when they’re notified that illegal file sharing could be happening under their roofs and how benign this process was. He said AT&T doesn’t share customer information with the copyright owner unless there’s a subpoena, and he didn’t know if AT&T kept records of such notices in the customer’s file. *snip*

That’s not what they said when the gave their phone records to the NSA WITHOUT a subpoena.

By: Dane Jasper

Dane Jasper — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 00:53:10 +0000

Om, what should ISPs do instead? Discard the infringement notices, leaving the customer obvious to the fact that they’re on the radar? Next thing you know they are sued.

Seems a heads up “you’ve been noticed” can’t be a bad thing.

-Dane Jasper