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.
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.
For once the ISPs are correct in court (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Easy solution. (Score:3)
That's exactly why they got sued -- all people had to do was sign up again after they'd been disconnected. **AA says more is required, though how exactly is anybody's guess. Ban the credit card? Ban anybody with that name? Ban the address? (Problematic for multi-tenant housing.) Or are subscribers required to provide things like birth certificates, social security cards, passports, DNA samples?
The law doesn't specify. And neither did the courts, so I'm not sure what the case law remedy would be in this case
Re:For once the ISPs are correct in court (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: For once the ISPs are correct in court (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: For once the ISPs are correct in court (Score:2)
So it is reasonable that if it was your IP address you should tell them who used your inte
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: For once the ISPs are correct in court (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: For once the ISPs are correct in court (Score:2)
Any country that doesn't have a rigorous "you're being punished if and only if you did it" isn't a civilized one, IMO.
Re: For once the ISPs are correct in court (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:1)
Re: For once the ISPs are correct in court (Score:3)
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 s (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Captain Obvious says (Score:5, Informative)
Accusations != Convictions
Nor is it the job of an ISP to police the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, no one would have an internet connection if they couldn't download copyrighted material.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: Captain Obvious says (Score:2)
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.
ISPs should not be fully responsible (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:ISPs should not be fully responsible (Score:5, Insightful)
Let the rights holders report their issues to the appropriate authorities
That's not the way it works. We're talking about tort, not crime.
If a copyright holder has evidence that someone is infringing their copyright, they may sue. That's all. The US doesn't employ "civil police" to investigate for them.
Vigilante justice (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
We the people should be more proactive in fixing this shit by passing constitutional ame
Innocent until proven guilty (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
uh... no.... not quite (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
The obvious next step. (Score:2)
Banks sue automakers for not preventing robbers from driving cars to rob banks.
sue truck stops, private toll roads, trucking co, (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
STASI-fication of America (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
ISPs are not editors and do not police things (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Really? (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It's "kids", no apostrophe.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Title II anyone? (Score:3)
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?
Accused != guilty (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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
911 (Score:1)
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.
cell phones can call 911 with no sim and even Emer (Score:2)
cell phones can call 911 with no sim and even blacklisted IMEI's can make Emergency Calls
ISPS do get paid (Score:2)
Charter Communications gets paid by media companies to cut off pirates.
ISP (Score:2)
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
Re: ISP (Score:2)
The easy answer (Score:2)
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... (Score:2)
Itâ(TM)s a utility (Score:1)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Google Fiber effectively already does this (Score:2)