Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Piracy

ISPs Tell Supreme Court They Don't Want To Disconnect Users Accused of Piracy (arstechnica.com) 72

Joe_Dragon shares a report: Four more large Internet service providers told the US Supreme Court this week that ISPs shouldn't be forced to aggressively police copyright infringement on broadband networks. While the ISPs worry about financial liability from lawsuits filed by major record labels and other copyright holders, they also argue that mass terminations of Internet users accused of piracy "would harm innocent people by depriving households, schools, hospitals, and businesses of Internet access."

The legal question presented by the case "is exceptionally important to the future of the Internet," they wrote in a brief filed with the Supreme Court on Monday. The amici curiae brief was filed by Altice USA (operator of the Optimum brand), Frontier Communications, Lumen (aka CenturyLink), and Verizon. The brief supports cable firm Cox Communications' attempt to overturn its loss in a copyright infringement lawsuit brought by Sony. Cox petitioned the Supreme Court to take up the case last month.

Sony and other music copyright holders sued Cox in 2018, claiming it didn't adequately fight piracy on its network and failed to terminate repeat infringers. A US District Court jury in the Eastern District of Virginia ruled in December 2019 that Cox must pay $1 billion in damages to the major record labels. Cox won a partial victory when the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit vacated the $1 billion verdict, finding that Cox wasn't guilty of vicarious infringement because it did not profit directly from infringement committed by users of its cable broadband network. But the appeals court affirmed the jury's finding of willful contributory infringement and ordered a new damages trial.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ISPs Tell Supreme Court They Don't Want To Disconnect Users Accused of Piracy

Comments Filter:
  • by Rujiel ( 1632063 ) on Thursday September 19, 2024 @04:34PM (#64800967)
    Expecting ISPs to play piracy cop is insane.
    • by arbiter1 ( 1204146 ) on Thursday September 19, 2024 @05:05PM (#64801035)
      they don't want to disconnect people for a claim alone with 0 evidence to back it outside "o we seen an IP that courts have ruled aren't a person".
      • they don't want to disconnect people for a claim alone with 0 evidence to back it outside "o we seen an IP that courts have ruled aren't a person".

        I think the larger concern in their defense, is not wanting to cause “mass terminations” of their customers.

        Based on their words, I’d say someone either already knows how bad it is, or someone already knows how bad it is.

    • by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      The plutocrats bribe heavily to prevent piracy even if doing so steps on the rights of we little peoples. Crimes that affect ordinary people are mostly ignored.

    • All the copyright prosecutors see in internet services is something like cable TV whereas the internet is necessary these days for so much more, e.g. finding jobs & accessing public services. You can't just cut people off because they downloaded some movies & TV shows.
      • Exactly.

        I thought the internet was a basic human right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

        If not, it should be. Even sex offenders are getting access to the internet again.

        Now, they may be able to restrict an internet connection. IE: The connection can't connect on anything but ports 80 and 443, but even then a HTTPS proxy would exist to do the same thing. It doesn't matter what they do, people will adapt.

        What's to stop the ISP from getting sued by the parents of a child that pirated for disconnect
    • Expecting ISPs to play piracy cop is insane.

      Isn't there also a due process problem? There isn't a one-to-one mapping between ISP accounts and infringers. What if the infringer uses a friend's wifi? Does the friend lose his account? What if the infringer uses a library? Does the library lose its account?

      • by unrtst ( 777550 )

        Expecting ISPs to play piracy cop is insane.

        Isn't there also a due process problem? There isn't a one-to-one mapping between ISP accounts and infringers. What if the infringer uses a friend's wifi? Does the friend lose his account? What if the infringer uses a library? Does the library lose its account?

        Valid questions, but those have already been squared away. For example, there's a three strikes rule, so if your friend or neighbor causes an issue, you get notified and are expected to shore up your home network.

        100% agree it shouldn't be the network operators job in any way at all whatsoever. IMO, make them subpoena the ISP for the individual subscriber info and go through normal due process. It's not like they end up charging/fining/claiming $20 or something; they usually claim boatloads of damages.

        • Valid questions, but those have already been squared away. For example, there's a three strikes rule, so if your friend or neighbor causes an issue, you get notified and are expected to shore up your home network.

          100% agree it shouldn't be the network operators job in any way at all whatsoever. IMO, make them subpoena the ISP for the individual subscriber info and go through normal due process. It's not like they end up charging/fining/claiming $20 or something; they usually claim boatloads of damages.

          Yeah because they can claim up to like $150,000 per infringement which is absolutely absurd. Even torrenting, most people maybe seed 150% of the file (from my XP), so that should go into account for the damages. I can understand cost of movie / song + 150% of cost of movie / song as a fine, but it shouldn't bankrupt the average person. Honestly, they should just release it as DRM free (and be forced to) MP4/AV1 files for movies/TV Shows. It's just as easy to pirate it as it is to download it that way, and p

          • As an indication of the madness: Iâ(TM)ve got CDs that were inside newspapers, that was fashionable for some time. 20 songs on them, thats 20 works, thats up to $600,000 or $3,000,000.

            Some years ago a company named Psystar tried selling computers with pirated copies of MacosX. I would have thought thats worth a lot more than a CD that came for free in my newspaper. Turns out MacOSX (and probably Windows, Linux etc. ) counted as _one_ work for $30,000.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by arbiter1 ( 1204146 )
          Problem with 3 strikes thing is still "guilty Period" without so much as proof other then a claim.
        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          It just needs a solid ruling that an IP address collected by a private investigator isn't adequate evidence to identify an infringer, and the account holder has no liability either. Then all the lawsuits can go away and they will have to concentrate on offering a better product to complete.

          • Itâ(TM)s not proof that the customer was pirating, but itâ(TM)s evidence. For traffic violations in the UK and Germany for example, if it is your car, you will be asked who the driver was. In the UK if you donâ(TM)t tell them you won't get a cheap fixed penalty but go to court which is a lot more expensive. In Germany a court can say "you should know who drives your car" and order you to keep a diary.

            So it is reasonable that if it was your IP address you should tell them who used your inte
            • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              That's a criminal case though. In the UK when some random private parking firm sends a "fine", it's really just a speculative invoice and you can ignore it. You don't have to tell them who was driving and they can't prevail in court if they don't know who to take legal action against.

              Like these copyright speculative invoices, they just hope people panic and pay up without realising that they don't have to assist the claimant.

              • by unrtst ( 777550 )

                Like these copyright speculative invoices, they just hope people panic and pay up without realising that they don't have to assist the claimant.

                IMO, that's where the ISP disconnects cross the line. Similar scary warnings and threats at first, but then they just disconnect you and put you on a blacklist, rather than having the claimant follow through with legal action.

      • If a friend uses your car and runs a red light, you can either (a) pay the ticket or (b) go to court and name your friend who was using the vehicle. If you get a ticket in a rental car, the rental car company will have to pay the ticket but then they can attempt to collect from the customer.
        • In more civilized countries you don't "have to" anything. It's for the authorities to investigate, that's what they're there for.

          What the authorities can do, in turn, is force you to keep a ledger of who used the car at which time for the future, and present that ledger when asked. But it's still on them ro investigate and demonstrate foul play by whoever think broke the law -- with all the bells & whistles of due process regarding that person.

          • I only have first-hand experience in the US and in Switzerland. Those may not meet your definition of "more civilized" but they aren't exactly undeveloped places either.
          • In the UK: A fixed penalty for the red traffic light if you admit to it is 60 pound. Or you tell them who the driver was and they go after the driver. If you don't admit it or tell them the name of the driver, it goes to court with a much higher fine and court cost. So you don't âoehave to" do anything, but it's stupid not to.
    • Internet: ALL INFORMATION IS FREE!!!! *Freedom rays emit*

      Corporations: IT WAS NEVER SUPPOSED TO BE LIKE THAT! STOP THEM! THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO SUFFER!!!!

      These are some other words that aren't in caps, because of the silly filter.

    • by Kisai ( 213879 )

      Asking ISP's to police copyright infringement is like asking cities to catch every single jaywalker, red-light runner, speeder, illegal u-turn, vandals, drug dealers, etc. There is not enough human resources to do that, and the vast majority of these crimes are not harming anyone, mostly just nuisance activities, and property owners where the crimes occur at is mostly a waste of time. Police should be focused on gang activity, shoplifting and weapons offences, where the person committing the crime is harmin

      • So activities that substantially elevate the risk of death are nuisance crimes, and shoplifting is the serious one police should focus on? Nice priorities. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that's the actual nuisance crime that conservative media has been whining about even after large corps admitted it's largely bullshit in their store closing decisions.
        • Jaywalking doesn't "substantially elevate the risk of death" by default. Some does, sure, but most doesn't. Crossing the road in the middle of the night in a town of 30 people is jaywalking. If there's no car around, the risk of death is lower than the risk of choking to death on a peanut at your local pub.

          "Risk.of death" isn't the sudo password to stupid law enforcement, you know...

      • red-light runners have video evidence to use and you still have an count to make an ruling.

        sony wants ISP to cut people off that may of ran an red light with no video evidence and no court.

    • this is even more insane because the people that want this want the ISP's to punish people who are only accused, not found guilty, just accused!!!!
  • Captain Obvious says (Score:5, Informative)

    by nehumanuscrede ( 624750 ) on Thursday September 19, 2024 @04:35PM (#64800971)

    Accusations != Convictions

    Nor is it the job of an ISP to police the internet.

    • by PPH ( 736903 )

      This.
      Cox is not Sony's personal army.

      On the other hand, if they expect private individuals or companies to be cops, I'm going to want a machine gun.

    • Cap'n Obvious also says: the ISPs are *MAKING MONEY* off piracy. More pirates == more traffic == more $$$.

      The maker of Baggies doesn't want to stop the illegal drug trade either.

      • by rea1l1 ( 903073 )

        Yeah, no one would have an internet connection if they couldn't download copyrighted material.

      • Wouldn't the ISP make the same amount of money if the user obtained the content legally?

        The argument of the user wouldn't have downloaded the content means the content rights holder didn't lose income

      • by flink ( 18449 )

        Residential ISPs don't get paid per MB. They get a flat fee to provide bandwidth. Habitual pirates cost them money by sucking up more bandwidth, increasing infra costs.

        • Your payment is not for your usage, but for the usage of the average user in your position. Because for most people measuring their usage and sending them an individual bill would cost more than the bandwidth.

          My ISP has defined a limit where they believe "with that amount of usage we want you to pay more than the average user"; that amount is ten times more than I usually use.
  • by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Thursday September 19, 2024 @04:38PM (#64800975)

    If an ISP is a pit of criminal activity, it should be subject to heavy police presence. Just like a 'bad neighbourhood' IRL will tend to have more cops in patrol cars.

    But asking ISPs to ban copyright infringers is just an attempt to circumvent the legal system. Let the rights holders report their issues to the appropriate authorities and wait out the investigations that may follow if the evidence is sufficient.

  • by WaffleMonster ( 969671 ) on Thursday September 19, 2024 @04:53PM (#64801005)

    Who could have guessed demanding corporations assume the role of judge, jury and proverbial executioner was a bad idea?

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      Who could have guessed demanding corporations assume the role of judge, jury and proverbial executioner was a bad idea?

      Who would have guessed that a corporation, when asked to play the role of judge, jury, and proverbial executioner, would push back? Granted, we know that ultimately if they did follow through they would lose some percentage of revenue, and we all know the only thing that truly matters is the profit involved. Just kind of odd that the profit and the normal people way down here at the bottom happened to line up for a change.

      I'm a little baffled when trying to sort out which way the Supreme Court would lean he

      • It's not surprising given it's one set of companies asking a completely different set to take on that role for them without any competition for those efforts. It would be akin to a company that manufactures lawn equipment asking companies that mow lawns to refuse to do business with people who have lawn gnomes in their yards. What exactly is in it for the lawn care companies other than added costs and fewer customers?

        We the people should be more proactive in fixing this shit by passing constitutional ame
  • by sjames ( 1099 ) on Thursday September 19, 2024 @04:55PM (#64801015) Homepage Journal

    What next, accused shoplifters go directly to jail, no right to a trial?

    Internet access is required in the modern world and there is often only one viable choice. Accusations of "piracy" have been known to be mistaken.

    It isn't an ISPs job to police piracy any more than it is Ma Bell's job to listen in and cut off phone service to anyone who might be planning to rob a bank.

    If someone steals some CDs and makes a getaway in the old Chevy, GM, AAA, the tire place, and Jiffy Lube are not contributory offenders. No, not the DMV that licensed the driver either.

  • by theendlessnow ( 516149 ) * on Thursday September 19, 2024 @05:05PM (#64801037)
    I will happily testify that the "pirate market" is the creation of all of those "copyright holders" who punish learners using DMCA to make legitimate backup copies of paid for, owned media via decryption a federal crime.

    End the DMCA and we'll talk. Until then, you created the market, ensure that it grows and never goes away.

    I'm all for supporting artists and those behind producing their works for consumption. But, the law you crafted makes me guilty of "paying you" so I can "commit federal crime". And that's ridiculous. You know what's safer? Pirating.
  • Banks sue automakers for not preventing robbers from driving cars to rob banks.

    • sue truck stops, private toll roads, trucking co, etc for helping to move. Counterfeit goods, Grey market goods, goods that violate trade marks or Patents

    • Banks sue automakers for not preventing robbers from driving cars to rob banks.

      Would be hilarious if a car company's privacy raping came back to bite them in the form of a lawsuit for having the data that could have prevented a crime but not stopping it.

  • by Tokolosh ( 1256448 ) on Thursday September 19, 2024 @05:23PM (#64801083)

    The government forces you to monitor, punish and snitch on your fellow citizens, at your own time and expense.

    ISPs - hand over "pirates" for us
    Libraries - hand over people interested in the wrong things
    Doctors and hospitals - hand over women who may terminate a pregnancy, or change gender
    Banks - hand over anyone moving more than $10,000 or otherwise being suspicious, getting Paypal or Venmo money.
    Phone companies - hand over everyone with dragnet location tracking, call data.
    TSA - Never mind the 4th, this is an "administrative search". but if we find a baggie, money or water we are calling the cops
    Bars - we scan your license, because...and will give it to anyone who asks
    Ring doorbells - just hand it over
    You and me - see something, say something

    The government has fully outsourced a surveillance state.

  • There was a concept a few decades ago that if an ISP or online service is putting in effort to censor content, then it is required to police that service for copyright violations. As I recall, much of that had to do with Scientology wanting ISPs to block copyright infringement to protect L. Ron Hubbard stuff from copyright infringement. It went back and forth a bit, but the idea is that ISPs are not required to look for copyright violations, but must respond to take down requests if copyright violations

    • The argument against is that in many cases it's important that infringing material is removed swiftly. That argument is not wholly without merit. However there should also be a penalty for an ISP taking content offline without cause. At the very least they should take a cursory look at the claim of infringement (often this will reveal there's no case), and respond swiftly to appeals after a takedown.
  • by VonSkippy ( 892467 ) on Thursday September 19, 2024 @05:44PM (#64801133) Homepage

    How is this still a thing?

    Are kid's so computer illiterate today they don't know to use a VPN if they're going to break the law.

    And then they wonder why they can't have nice things.

    • It's "kids", no apostrophe.

    • Here is an amusing anecdote for you: I am part of the training team for new users where I work (gov't lab) we get quite a few "kids" (recently college grads) who have never used a computer before. Only cellphones and to a lesser extent, tablets.
      I cannot fathom trying to write a thesis on a cellphone. It's gotten so bad, we now include with out new user orientation, "computer training" for those that have never touched one.

      Mind boggling, I know.

  • by Mhrmnhrm ( 263196 ) on Thursday September 19, 2024 @05:49PM (#64801143)

    ISPs behaving badly, but wouldn't being regulated under Title II, same as a phone company, make them immune to this sort of thing? Of course, they don't want Title II, so why give them the benefits of it?

    • How would you like it if you got disconnected by your ISP simply because some nameless corp *accused* you of some crime?

      Witch-hunting (accused == guilty) may still be an acceptable thing in your local area, but most people here on /. would prefer innocence until proven guilty.

    • ISPs behaving badly, but wouldn't being regulated under Title II, same as a phone company, make them immune to this sort of thing? Of course, they don't want Title II, so why give them the benefits of it?

      This. This is exactly the kind of comment I was hoping to see. In this day and age, I truly don't understand why internet access isn't considered a fundamental human right alongside electricity and water. The expectation of different regulation for these essential services is also questionable. I expect ISPs to maintain their infrastructure just as a water company would replace corroded pipes. Similarly, I wouldn't expect an electrical company to cut off someone's power because of illegal activity in their

  • How can you legally cut off 911 service when phones require internet to operate?

    Every internet company, from Facebook to X to Google to ChatGPT to _____, should be putting in their 2C on this as they will all lose customers, and hundreds of thousands of them.
  • Charter Communications gets paid by media companies to cut off pirates.

  • by ledow ( 319597 )

    In the UK, PSTN phones are going the way of the dodo.

    I switched ISP recently and they have to explain to you that you don't have a landline any more. Your phone (if you decide to have a phone number) is VoIP and comes from your router, and thus isn't suitable for emergency use as it won't work in power cuts, etc.

    They have basically stopped offering new landlines and will be cutting off businesses over the next year or so (I know, I keep getting the letters and they keep ramping up the prices for old landli

    • I switched from landline to mobile phones but didnâ(TM)t want to lose the landline number. Vodafone lets me receive calls on my old landline number for free. (Making calls is either quite a bit per minute, or a monthly payment, so I had to explain to my wife to call people only on her mobile, not the landline).
  • ... willful contributory infringement ...

    The answer is easy: No commercially copyrighted material can be downloaded until the copyright holder verifies it: Spotify didn't confirm you can listen to Taylor Swift today, it ain't happening. Google Play didn't confirm you can read Harry Potter novels, sucks to be you. In short, every shop has the responsibility to tell Cox Communications, what copyright license they just sold to a customer. Allowing anybody to download copyrighted e-books would be irresponsible, to listen to copyrighted music, wou

  • If ISP's can be sued, should they be sued for all the hacking that is done thru them ???? There is more damage done thru hacking then DLing content !
  • No one expects the gas company to make sure youâ(TM)re not using their product to cook meth. No one ever gets their power disconnected because they were growing marijuana in their house. Why should your Internet provider be any different?

    • by ledow ( 319597 )

      Because if your telco lets people make spam phone calls and lets them through to customers all the time, you do expect them to do something about it.

      And the closest analog between an ISP and a conventional utility is the telecoms network.

      Not saying it's right, but there's a logic at work there.

      The solution is to say that they are just communications providers, and then encourage people to "firewall" their home phone to only accept calls from known callers. But we've never done that, and we still build syst

  • They basically ignore DMCAs while sending users emails about their so-called "offenses". They only look at shared torrents reported by others.

"Hello again, Peabody here..." -- Mister Peabody

Working...