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..."
Re:so? (Score:2, Interesting)
In the U.S., you typically have both the cable company and the phone company vying for Internet business.
You'd have to go pretty far out to find an area that only had dial-up, much less only one dial-up ISP in the area.
I never thought I'd say this, but... (Score:1, Interesting)
"or are even suspected of file-sharing."
That's a blatant infringement on one's human rights, which states that everyone is entitled to a fair trial.
The ISP could get into a lot of shit over that alone.
Did they mean "Illegal" file sharing? (Score:4, Interesting)
At first I thought they would disconnect me for sharing ubuntu-9.04-desktop-i386.iso . Then when the summary mentioned copyright owners, I wasn't so sure. Then the summary mentioned "admitting guilt", what guilt?
Re:A right not a privilege (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem when requiring independent businesses to supply a basic service in any eventuallity has caused issues. Two examples of this is that the water services in the UK cannot cut you off for non-payment of your bills - the downside to this is that a lot of people know that, and simply refuse to pay anyway.
The second example is that the government recently stopped paying Local Housing Allowance to private landlords (where the person entitled to the housing allowance was in private rented accomodation rather than social housing) and started paying it to the entitled person instead.
This was done in an effort to increase the individuals ability to manage their own finances. What it actually accomplished was the situation where many landlords were not getting paid, because the person receiving the allowance was instead spending the money on alcohol, tobacco and luxury goods.
THe problem is, its a long process to evict a tenant that isn't paying, and a longer one to evict a tenant that is already receiving housing benefit. So private landlords are paying the price for the government policy change.
So now, the council register of private landlords willing to house Local Housing Allowance recipients has shrunk by as much as 90% in two years.
The phone companies can cut off your telephone line, theres no reason why your internet connection is any more special.
Is this legal? (Score:2, Interesting)
Can anybody in the UK shed some light on whether this practise is even legal? How can an ISP act as a judge, jury and executioner especially given that they have spotty evidence at best?
Re:I never thought I'd say this, but... (Score:1, Interesting)
Folks, the legal framework is business as usual. What's unusual about this case is that it is actually used to disconnect customers, because the ISP is a monopoly and can get away with it. All web hosting companies and most ISPs have similar clauses in their terms of service and could cut you off if they think you violated the ToS. It is the customer's option to drag the ISP to court over an unlawful contract termination, or, if the customer withholds payments, the ISP can sue for payment. In both cases the ISP has to prove that the customer has violated the contract. If the ISP can't prove a violation, then the customer can sue for damages resulting from the unlawful termination.
Re:A right not a privilege (Score:2, Interesting)
It may not be considered an essential service now, but it damn well ought to be.
Re:I am an ISP and I support this (Score:2, Interesting)
For the millionth time, file sharing is not stealing. Shouting the same lie from your noise hole over and over again will never make it true.
Content creators are not owed a living. The quality of the vast majority of content is low, and the price is too high. However, content creators have got it into their heads they deserve massive remuneration for very little, low quality, work. They are trying to have the government use force to squeeze money out of consumers, in a manner little different from racketeering.
They will lose, if only because the two sides of this debate are divided by age, with the young respecting the freedom of information flow, and the old desperate to hang onto the economic privileges they lose.
Re:I am an ISP and I support this (Score:2, Interesting)
Is the ISP legally obliged to ensure its users don't do illegal things? If so, I'd have expected more ISPs to run similar operations.
On the contrary, surely it is entirely acceptable that those people making legitimate use of your network costs you some of the money you charge them for that use? (that cost being that which you spend on determining whether this suspected thief is actually thieving)
This is fine. And I wish ISPs would just say that they're overselling their resources rather than pretending that anyone who wants access to the services they thought they signed up to is stealing music.
One point of contention in the article is that these people are getting cut off on nothing more than an assumption that they must be pirating stuff since they're using P2P. This is like arresting people leaving hardware shops with crowbars on the grounds that they're going to burgle houses.
No news here (Score:2, Interesting)
Is it a legal admission of guilt? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I don't understand (Score:4, Interesting)
Which whould you buy?
Unlimited internet £19.99*
50gb/month internet £19.99
* Subject to FUP, and we won't tell you it's 50gb/mo anywhere.
90% of people will go for the first. It's all about perception.
IMO it should be illegal to use the term unlimited when it clearly isn't, but that's the way the law stands at the moment.
Worse, what's started happening is people are complaining about the FUPs, so they're being rewritten with no cap just a vague paragraph about protecting other users. Competition is forcing the prices down to the point that it's hard to make a profit on normal usage let alone heavy usage, so you've got unlimited services with no written cap, massively oversubscribed and underpriced.
In that situation kicking off the high volume users is all they have left.. they've backed themselves into a corner.
Government granted monopoly? (Score:3, Interesting)
Generally, I agree with you. Government should not unduly interfere with business relationships. Businesses should be, mostly, free to decide who they do business with.
But, when you talk about utilities that have government granted monopolies on running cable through rights-of-way to all the buildings in a geographic area, and no one else is permitted to compete by running their own cables, then its a different story. Such a business should be subject to government regulation, including reasonable regulations that they must offer service to anyone willing to pay, and to cut off service, there should either be lack of payment for an extended period (e.g. don't cut someone off for being just 2 or 3 days late on payment), or because of a *court order* (that is, as a result of perhaps a copyright holder suing someone for copyright violation, the court finding the defendant guilty, and the court issuing an order to terminate their Internet connection; or, in a more extreme case, maybe a judge has seen sufficient evidence to show that an internet connection is likely being used for something like kiddie porn, terrorism, or the operations of some other type of criminal organization, and so issues an emergency order before the trial).
Re:A right not a privilege (Score:4, Interesting)
Bullshit. I suppose people 25 years ago couldn't learn anything because they had no access to the internet, eh? I suppose people 10 years ago couldn't do much of anything either because the internet was small and slow, eh?
10 years ago...
* My phone company published a pretty decent phone directory, which was delivered to my door. It included listings for the entire city.
* 411 was free on pay phones and only 25 cents from my landline. (A while before that, it was free from the landline too.) Now it costs $3.49 each time we call 411. (Unless we use GOOG-411... but I found out about that on the internet.)
* I could dial 853-1212 and check the time to set my clocks.
* There were pay phones all over the place, and for 25 cents I could talk as long as I wanted to local numbers. The phones had phone books attached in many cases.
* Local businesses stocked all manner of items that were rarely needed, because when they were needed, they were the only way of getting them in the area.
* You could use a telephone to enroll in your classes at the largest public university in the largest state in the US. (A year later it was all online.)
Things have changed a lot in the last 10 years. If you have internet access (and everyone on this thread likely does) you wouldn't notice it as much... but there's a LOT that doesn't exist anymore because you can get it easier online.
Re:CableOne does this here in Idaho! (Score:3, Interesting)
That depends, did you actually download anything NBC would consider illegal downloading, or were you just getting the latest WoW update?