Major ISPs to turn into copyright police by July says RIAA

[Purple Lady]

Since when do ISPs have the right to monitor what I do on the web? Isn't this an invasion of privacy? If my phone calls were monitored to see who I was calling, that would be illegal. From the article

The “gradual response” program works like this: ISPs will automatically monitor the Web activity of their customers. If a subscriber is found to be downloading copyrighted content illegally, their ISP will send them an “educational” notice saying such activity has been detected from IP addresses linked to their account. If that customer continues to download content illegally, the ISP will send “confirmation notices” to make sure they received the original notices. If copyright infringing activity continues still, the ISP then reserves the right to throttle Web access speeds, or cut off a subscriber’s Internet access altogether, at least until that user agrees to stop pirating copyrighted material. According to CNet, the ISPs have the option to skip these “mitigation measures,” and none have yet committed to completely cutting Internet access.

[SeaKing]

Originally Posted by Purple Lady

Since when do ISPs have the right to monitor what I do on the web? Isn't this an invasion of privacy? If my phone calls were monitored to see who I was calling, that would be illegal. From the article

Isn't this what was just killed by popular outcry?

[Purple Lady]

Originally Posted by SeaKing

Isn't this what was just killed by popular outcry?

I don't think so, the article said it was voluntary.

File-sharers, beware: By July 12, major US Internet service providers (ISPs) will voluntarily begin serving as copyright police for the entertainment industry, according to Cary Sherman, chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). The so-called “six-strikes” plan is said to be one of the most effective anti-piracy efforts ever established in the US.

[elcreative]

So much for the home of the brave and the land of the free... guess they've finally admitted it and let the thought police out into the open...

[sabredog]

AFACT are trying this on in Australia against iiNet, the third biggest ISP here. Their masters, the RIAA and MPAA, are funding the multiple appeals to the original court decision.

That court decision went against AFACT with the requirement they pay full court costs to iiNet.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Purple Lady

From the article

Which the ISP will know, because the subscriber will have been convicted of a crime.

Oh, wait. This isn't about knowing something has been done illegally because a court confirmed it. This is "ISPs will decide which downloads are legal and illegal, based on their extensive awareness of exactly which content is public domain, creative commons, shared with permission, owned by disinterested parties who don't care whether it's copied, or copyrighted and the owner(s) would prefer it not be downloaded by the person who's grabbing a copy." The ISP will know if this is an author who's regained their rights grabbing a copy from the torrents as a jump-start to selling their own ebooks. The ISP will know if the band that wrote and performs this song has a clause in their contract that allows them to grant permission for their songs to be shared. The ISP will know if the download of this TV episode is for educational purposes and allowed under fair use.

ISPs will also, of course, be happy to confirm the contents of each and every file being downloaded, to make sure it matches the description.

[xg4bx]

is it really that far of a stretch before ISPs start deciding what other sites are ok?

'look, you've been visiting an awful lot of questionable political sites. we really don't want to support those so we're cutting your access'.

this is why you never give up freedoms, you will never get them back. like they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. thanks copyright and drm nazis! next time it'll be something that affects you.

[rdfry]

This is why we have to remain ever vigilant and be the voices of common sense. It is an everlasting and tedious battle against the idiotic, simplistic ideas of powerful people.

[plib]

Originally Posted by elcreative

So much for the home of the brave and the land of the free... guess they've finally admitted it and let the thought police out into the open...

It might still be the home of the brave, but freedom got bought out and downsized some time ago.

[markbot]

Originally Posted by Purple Lady

Since when do ISPs have the right to monitor what I do on the web? Isn't this an invasion of privacy? If my phone calls were monitored to see who I was calling, that would be illegal. From the article

This reduces network traffic since piraters are the largest users and helps support the pay-tv services, as video content piracy cuts into that.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by elcreative

So much for the home of the brave and the land of the free... guess they've finally admitted it and let the thought police out into the open...

Now you just wait a second. Its only thought police if the government enforces it. Corporations can do whatever the hell they want, because this isn't Soviet Russia.

[/sarcasm]

[CommonReader]

I just wonder, wouldn't this be illegal wiretapping? It's one matter to monitor traffic in order to suppress certain services, but this would require a much more detailed inspection of web traffic.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by teh603

Now you just wait a second. Its only thought police if the government enforces it. Corporations can do whatever the hell they want, because this isn't Soviet Russia.

[/sarcasm]

So sorry... but isn't this just outsourcing the work...

[rhadin]

Seems to me that the "educational" notice would have to explicitly state that I illegally downloaded copyrighted material in violation of xyz law. I think that would be, in the absence of proof that it was illegal + copyrighted + downloaded by me, defamation. I can't imagine any intelligent corporate lawyer approving voluntary cooperation with such a scheme in the absence of a protective law, but then it strikes me that the lawyers that are dealing with this issue on behalf of the RIAA and the corporations aren't the leading lights of the bar.

[cjr72]

Is there a definitive list of which ISP's are participating? Everything I've found so far is a variation of "Comcast, Cablevision, Verizon, Time Warner Cable and other bandwidth providers". When they accuse my networked laser printer of downloading The Bieb's music I'm going to be inclined to switch to another ISP that doesn't participate if possible.