UK ISP Disconnects Customers For File Sharing 311
think_nix writes "Karoo, an ISP in Hull, in the UK, is disconnecting subscribers without warning if they file-share, or are even suspected of file-sharing. Karoo is the only ISP in the area. Copyright owners are working with the ISP helping them identify and report suspected filesharers using their services. In order to get service restored, subscribers have to go to Karoo's office and sign a form admitting guilt and promising not to do it again. The article states that some subscribers have had their access cut off for more than two years." Update: 07/24 16:29 GMT by KD : The Register is reporting that Karoo has relented and has changed its policy. A spokesman said: "It is evident that we have been exceeding the expectation of copyright owners..."
So they disconnect anyone who uses a browser? (Score:3, Informative)
Telecoms monopoly (Score:4, Informative)
Re:A modest proposal (Score:4, Informative)
Or you could try to make a comment that is interesting, insightful, and/or informative like everyone else who wants to maintain their karma. It isn't really that hard, and that goes for everyone looking to get the karma bonus. The biggest thing is to be patient and wait until you have something interesting to contribute, rather than feeling like you need to comment at every opportunity.
Bad summary (Score:5, Informative)
From the Summary:
"The article states that some subscribers have had their access cut off for more than two years." WRONG.
From the Article:
"The terms and conditions Karoo enforce are not new - the BBC has spoken to customers whose accounts were suspended over two years ago." In actuality, this only means that the enforcement of this policy has been in use for over two years, not that actual customers have been without internet access for that time duration.
Re:so? (Score:1, Informative)
A quirk of history. BT isn't the provider of phone infrastructure in Hull - Kingston Communications is. It started out as a municipally run network, which wasn't unusual in the early 1900's, but all the other municipal networks in the UK were eventually subsumed into the Post Office, from which BT was created.
Re:Is this legal? (Score:3, Informative)
Because they're not throwing you in jail -- all they're doing is cutting off your service, which I'm pretty sure they're allowed to do even in the UK.
Re:so? (Score:2, Informative)
It is because since 1902, Kingston-upon-Hull has had its own local monopoly. It's one of those weird local wrinkles like Berwick-on-Tweed still being at war with Germany. Hull's telecoms firm has traditionally been surprisingly good but evidently they are now scared of being sued out of existence.
Re:I am an ISP and I support this (Score:5, Informative)
"IP2P is used exclusively to STEAL"
Wrong. True, a lot of people use it to steal. That's unfortunate. But there *are* legitimate uses of P2P technologies. I've used BitTorrent to download perfectly legal ISO's of Linux distros (Ubuntu provides links to the torrent right on the Ubuntu website, though you do have to hunt a little bit to find them). Same with OpenOffice.org. IIRC, Fedora also provides a torrent of the Fedora ISOs.
There was an HD 'tv' show, a couple years ago, called MariposaHD. The producers of the show distribute it exclusively by BitTorrent (it's still available if you care to check it out - it's mostly eye candy - some guys going to different South/Central American countries and taking HD footage of scenery and chicks - lots of chicks lol). The reason I mention it, is that I think there is real potential, in the future, for using P2P technologies to legally distribute HD content. I'd like to see more online video services perhaps adopt more P2P technologies - there's no reason a for-profit company couldn't potentially use P2P to increase their market reach and profitability.
Blizzard uses BitTorrent to push out updates for World of Warcraft.
There is a LOT of potential for P2P data distribution to be used both legally and productively. Unfortunately, so many people have the mindset you do, that they fail to realize the potential of P2P. It can dramatically reduce an online publishers costs in terms of how much bandwidth they have to buy in order to provide content to huge numbers of customers. It scales well with demand (the more people downloading in a P2P network, particularly with BitTorrent, but other protocols as well, the more other peers there are to download from).
Re:I never thought I'd say this, but... (Score:3, Informative)
A 'fair' trial isn't a basic human right, it isn't necessary for life
Due process has been considered a basic human right for at least 800 years [wikipedia.org] now. The US constitution (I know, not where the article takes place) also enumerates it as such.
I don't know about you, but I'd consider not being arbitrarily locked up in a prison a right. It seems very basic to me.
Worst ISP in the UK... (Score:3, Informative)
according to this independent ratings site [dslzoneuk.net].
Re:Is this legal? (Score:3, Informative)
According to Australian contract law, a provider can refuse to sell a service but they must provide a reason if the potential customer requests it. This reason however may be "you did not meet $PROVIDER criteria", they are required to give these reasons because they are given access to your financial records, even though it's with your consent they still have a duty of care with said data.
Service providers can refuse you service for any reason. I've been denied phone contracts for no other reason then the fact I did not have a line of credit, I used Visa Debit instead (called Visa Electron in some places). Most telco's get very bureaucratic as they get bigger.
That being said, once a contract is signed it is set in stone. A telco cannot renege so long as the customer is keeping his/her end of the bargain, by the same token a customer cannot renege on payments until a contract breach has been proven in court (not that hard in AU), once proven the Telco is up for damages (sometimes not just to the customer but to the competition watchdog as well). It's a system that protects both sides from abuses. I don't imagine UK contact law is very different from AU contract law, even in light of recent governmental stupidity in the UK. The Telco in question has done a massive about face in the light of bad publicity and potential investigation into their operation. For once the media has done some good (granted this is the Beeb, not foxnews so it's not that much of an accomplishment).
Re:No Safe Harbour in UK (Score:4, Informative)
It's not quite as simple as that.
We don't have a DMCA and as far as I am aware, the ISP cannot be sued by the content provider for allowing copyright infringement.
So, why does the ISP police its users like this? Simple. The content industry went to the government and said "waah waah piracy is costing us billions every week!" and the government came back with an ultimatum to ISPs: "do something about it or we'll pass a law forcing you to".
Now we have a situation where instead of this policing following a law (which at least generally has the good grace to deal with such things as providing a due process and an appeals procedure), it's based on your contract with your ISP which they can rewrite on a whim.
I think I'd have preferred the law.
It is evident, yes. (Score:4, Informative)
"It is evident that we have been exceeding the expectation of copyright owners..."
Sit!
Fetch!
Good boy!
Re:A right not a privilege (Score:3, Informative)
People still have phonelines?
Yes, it's the thing that carries my ADSL.