three strikes – Techdirt (original) (raw)

France Plans To Repeat Hadopi's Costly Mistakes By Turning It Into An Even Bigger, Even More Wrong-headed Anti-Piracy Body Called Arcom

from the will-they-ever-learn? dept

Techdirt covered the story of France’s “three strikes” law, later known as Hadopi, from the body overseeing it, for over ten years. What became a long-running farce eventually cost French taxpayers €82 million, and generated just €87,000 in fines. A rational government might draw the obvious conclusion that trying to stamp out unauthorized downloads using the crude instrument of fines and threats was the wrong approach. Oddly, though, the French government has decided that Hadopi was such a stunning, and embarrassing failure, it wants to do it again, but on an even grander scale, as a story on Euractiv reports:

A new super-regulator, the Autorité de régulation de la communication audiovisuelle et numérique (ARCOM) is to be created from the merger of the Haute Autorité pour la diffusion des ?uvres et la protection des droits sur Internet (HADOPI) and the Conseil supérieur de l?audiovisuel (CSA) in order to “step up the fight against pirate sites and to include this action in a broader policy of regulating online content”, according to the Ministry of Culture website.

The merger is part of a wide-ranging new law (original in French) that seeks to regulate many aspects of the online world in France, mostly in wrong-headed ways. Next Inpact has an excellent run-down on what is included in the proposed text (original in French). The main elements include tackling unauthorized downloads; propaganda aimed at convincing young people to love copyright; encouraging new services offering material (about the only sensible idea in the bill); and a mission to monitor the use of “technical protection measures” like DRM. In addition, the new law aims to combat sites with infringing material by using blacklists, to tackle mirror sites, and shut down unauthorized services offering sports content.

Given the French lawmakers’ willingness to grant lazy copyright companies whatever new legal options they want, however unbalanced or disproportionate in terms of basic rights and freedoms, there seems little chance the bill will be thrown out or even substantially modified. France’s Ministry of Culture is certainly fully behind it. In a press release, it went so far as to claim (original in French):

This ambitious bill is fundamental for the defense of French creativity.

It really isn’t. Moreover, they said the similar things about Hadopi, and look what happened there.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter, Diaspora, or Mastodon.

Filed Under: arcom, copyright, france, hadopi, piracy, three strikes

'Six Strikes' May Be Dead, But ISPs Keep Threatening To Disconnect Accused Pirates Anyway

from the undead-whac-a-mole dept

Wed, Oct 4th 2017 06:20am - Karl Bode

Earlier this year, the entertainment and telecom industries’ “six strikes” anti-piracy initiative died a quiet death after years of hype from the RIAA and MPAA about how it would revolutionize copyright enforcement (it didn’t). The program involved ISPs using a rotating crop of “escalation measures” to temporarily block, throttle or otherwise harass accused pirates until they acknowledged receipt of laughably one-sided copyright educational materials. Offenders, accused entirely based on IP address as proof of guilt, were allowed to try and contest these accusations — if they paid a $35 fee.

Needless to say, data suggests the Copyright Alert System didn’t do much if anything to stop piracy, since most would-be pirates simply obscured their internet behavior using proxies and VPNs. Meanwhile, the supposed “education” the program provided American consumers accomplished little more than driving up broadband costs as ISPs passed on the cost of participation in the farce to the end user.

But while six strikes is technically dead, that’s not apparently stopping participating ISPs like Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner Cable (now Charter Spectrum) from continuing to threaten to disconnect users from the internet based on often-flimsy IP address evidence. Users of these ISPs say they continue to receive threats from their ISP that they’ll be kicked off of the internet if they don’t stop being naughty:

“So, over the weekend my internet got interrupted by my ISP (internet service provider) stating that someone on my network has violated some copyright laws. I had to complete a survey and they brought back the internet to me,? one subscriber wrote a few weeks ago. He added that his (unnamed) ISP advised him that seven warnings would get his account disconnected.

Another user, who named his ISP as Comcast, reported receiving a notice after downloading a game using BitTorrent. He was warned that the alleged infringement ?may result in the suspension or termination of your Service account? but what remains unclear is how many warnings people can receive before this happens.

To be clear ISPs don’t actually kick people off of the internet, as nearly everybody (outside of the RIAA and MPAA) has acknowledged that severing access to a necessary utility is a draconian over-reaction to downloading the Led Zeppelin discography. Under the six strikes initiative, nothing actually happened to users after reaching the sixth strike, the hope being you could scare people into compliance (it doesn’t work). The only way to ensure compliance would be to craft an organization tasked with tracking individual users as they float between ISPs, an approach France found to be an untenable disaster.

Nothing still happens to users who give a middle finger to these warnings, but that apparently doesn’t stop ISPs like Verizon from temporarily suspending user accounts, requiring they call up the droll old telco sexy new Millennial-focused advertising powerhouse to get reconnected to the internet:

“So lately I?ve been getting more and more annoyed with pirating because I get blasted with a webpage telling me my internet is disconnected and that I need to delete the file to reconnect, with the latest one having me actually call Verizon to reconnect,? a subscriber to the service reported earlier this month.”

Of course many of these ISPs are just going through the motions because of the Cox versus BMG case, in which a notably-distorted interpretation of the DMCA by Judge Liam O’Grady now puts ISP safe harbor protections at risk — if they don’t participate in this useless and costly game of make believe. Most ISP executives I’ve spoken to make it clear that the broadband industry is cooperating begrudgingly to protect themselves from liability, and are all well aware of the futility and ineffectiveness of these systems, the cost of which are now rolled into your already bloated broadband bill.

So while six strikes may formally be dead, the animated corpse of the misguided concept lives on, with ISPs that don’t even believe in what they’re doing pretending that this costly and annoying system of threats and scolding actually has any substantive purpose. That, apparently, will have to make do until the MPAA and RIAA (and the myriad of lawmakers and dollar per holler consultants paid to love them) can concoct an even worse idea.

Filed Under: copyright, isps, six strikes, three strikes

How The Supreme Court's Recent Free Speech Ruling May Destroy Hollywood's Plans To Kick People Off The Internet

from the about-that... dept

Earlier this week, we wrote about the details of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Packingham v. North Carolina — the case that said a North Carolina law that barred convicted sex offenders from using social media was unconstitutional. There were some good lines in the ruling, but this may be the most important:

Even with these assumptions about the scope of the law and the State?s interest, the statute here enacts a prohibition unprecedented in the scope of First Amendment speech it burdens. Social media allows users to gain access to information and communicate with one another about it on any subject that might come to mind…. By prohibiting sex offenders from using those websites, North Carolina with one broad stroke bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge. These websites can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard. They allow a person with anInternet connection to ?become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.”…

In sum, to foreclose access to social media altogether is to prevent the user from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights. It is unsettling to suggest that only a limited set of websites can be used even by persons who have completed their sentences. Even convicted criminals?and in some instances especially convicted criminals?might receive legitimate benefits from these means for access to the world of ideas, in particular if they seek to reform and to pursue lawful and rewarding lives.

As we noted in our original post, I expect that to be quoted in many other cases — and a big one may be the ongoing attempts right now by the legacy entertainment industry to force ISPs to kick people off of their service based on accusations (not convictions) of infringement. Those cases, like this Packingham case, involve using a law to claim that people should be blocked from using the internet. And based on the quotes above, it seems quite likely that parts of the DMCA are clearly unconstitutional. The lawsuits — mainly the BMG v. Cox ruling which is currently on appeal, and the more recent UMG v. Grande Communications (which follows the same basic outlines of the Cox case) — involve arguing that 512(i) of the DMCA requires ISPs to kick users off their service entirely based on accusations of infringement. As we’ve explained, this already appears to be a twisted interpretation of 512(i), but now it appears there’s a very reasonable chance that the Supreme Court could find 512(i) outright unconstitutional under the First Amendment for broadly blocking internet access in a way that harms free speech rights.

As noted by copyright professor Annemarie Bridy, this clearly could impact those other cases following this ruling:

Packingham is relevant to this conversation because it stands quite clearly for the proposition that broadly defined state-mandated limits on access to the Internet raise serious First Amendment issues. Packingham challenged the constitutionality of a North Carolina criminal statute prohibiting registered sex offenders from accessing ?commercial social networking sites? on the Internet. In striking down the statute on First Amendment grounds, the Court emphasized the critical importance of the Internet in general, and social media platforms in particular, to everyday life in the ?Cyber Age.? While the Court recognized a significant governmental interest in preventing use of the Internet for criminal activity, it held that North Carolina?s ban on social media access swept too broadly. Interestingly, the Court elected not to decide with precision how much of the Internet the challenged statute put off limits. It declined to say?because it didn?t think it had to?whether the statute?s prohibition reached sites like Amazon.com, Washingtonpost.com, and WebMD.com in addition to ?commonly understood? social networking sites like Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter. The Court concluded that the statute couldn?t survive First Amendment scrutiny even if it were narrowly construed to cover only the social media platforms that everyone can agree are social media platforms. To put it another way, the statute?s prohibition was broad enough to offend the First Amendment even when narrowly construed to cover only parts of the Web.

Bridy doesn’t go so far as to argue that Packingham means 512(i) is unconstitutional — in fact, she notes that it’s more limited than the North Carolina law that was struck down. But, she notes:

Packingham?s holding should serve as a reminder to lower courts interpreting section 512(i) that termination of access to the Internet implicates core First Amendment values: ?While in the past there may have been difficulty in identifying the most important places (in the spatial sense) for the exchange of views, today the answer is clear. It is cyberspace.? Consequently, courts should consider it reasonable, and within the bounds of the DMCA safe harbor, for broadband providers to determine that ?appropriate circumstances? for terminating a user?s access to the whole Internet for infringing copyright are very rare.

Harold Feld, from Public Knowledge, goes a bit further in his own analysis, arguing that when it comes to internet access providers, it seems clear that parts of 512(i) requiring termination, should be seen as unconstitutional, while also pointing out that to argue against this might mean Hollywood arguing that copyright infringement is somehow worse that child molestation.

Granted, Hollywood lobbyists and their wholly owned subsidiaries in Congress are capable of arguing with a straight face that copyright infringement is actually worse than child molestation and therefore the government purpose is sufficiently compelling to override all First Amendment concerns. And some judges, like the district court judge in the BMG v. Cox decision, would probably agree. (Read his opinion here to see if you agree.) But I?m doubtful that the majority of appeals court judges will agree. Whether or not one treats the majority opinion?s public forum analysis of social networks as ?dicta? (which is legalese for ?stuff in an opinion I don?t like so I don?t consider binding?), all 8 Supreme Court justices agreed that subscribers have a First Amendment right to access information and speak online, and that the government cannot prohibit a person from accessing content that has nothing to do with preventing repeat offenses ? even when the repeat offense is child molestation, and the evidence arguably supported that child molesters were particularly prone to repetition.

Sorry, if molesting minors doesn?t justify permanently kicking you off the Internet, downloading 3 advance copies of Transformers: The Last Knight shouldn?t either. Congress cannot require ISPs to terminate subscribers accused of downloading pirating material (which is what Section 512(i) amounts to) anymore than it can criminalize accessing the Internet after being accused of downloading pirated material. Nor do I expect Big Content to prevail by arguing that getting you thrown off your ISP isn?t blocking you from accessing the Internet, because of all the amazing broadband options you have to replace your loss of service. While America boasted thousands of dial-up ISPs in 1998 when the DMCA was passed, most folks are lucky to have a choice of two landline providers capable of providing reliable, always on broadband of sufficient quality to allow me to engage in all my protected First Amendment online activity.

There is the separate question of whether or not this ruling would also kill off 512(i) as it applies to service providers on the network (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Techdirt, etc…) rather than internet access providers, such as Comcast, AT&T, etc. Feld thinks there is an argument that the opinion could be read to block such rulings as well:

Whether Packingham makes Section 512(i)?s requirement that all social media sites and other ?covered entities? have termination policies for ?repeat infringers? is somewhat less clear. Taking the majority analysis as actual opinion rather than ?undisciplined dicta,? then the answer is clearly yes for major social network sites and platforms including ? wait for it ? Youtube. It?s kind of hard to argue that the largest online video platform, whose videos include some of the most important raw footage of critical events and which has become a central location for debate, doesn?t qualify as the kind of online public forum Kennedy described. Nor does it make much sense to say access to Facebook and Twitter are protected under the First Amendment while access to Youtube isn?t.

OTOH, I?m not sure the same analysis applies to cloud storage or other services that don?t share the attributes of a general public forum. And, of course, websites or services that are set up expressly to facilitate the exchange of infringing material don?t qualify for safe harbor protection anyway, so the hypothetical Doctor Evil Sing Along Piracy Exchange is already subject to liability.

Of course, none of this should apply to the platforms making decisions themselves over removing content or users from their own platforms (for which the platforms have their own First Amendment protections). Yet, I would not be at all surprised to see someone raise this issue in court, and argue that Packingham means that major social networks (Facebook, especially, but likely Twitter and YouTube as well) have no right to bar users. I think that would be a bad result, but the language in the Packingham ruling at least makes such a ruling a lot more plausible than it was last week.

The Packingham ruling is likely to have quite a lot of impact, and as predicted yesterday, I expect it to be quoted frequently in cases involving the internet over the next few years.

Filed Under: 512i, copyright, copyright trolling, dmca, first amendment, free speech, supreme court, three strikes
Companies: bmg, cox, grande communications, rightscorp

Ding Dong: Silly Six Strikes Copyright Infringement Scheme Is Dead

from the about-time dept

The pointless “six strikes” plan — a hilarious “voluntary agreement” between some big ISPs and the MPAA & RIAA is no more. It’s dead. It never should have lived, and of course, the MPAA is now blaming everyone but itself for the failure — and we’ll get to that. But first, some background.

As you may remember, back in 2011, after significant direct pressure from the White House, many of the big ISPs and the MPAA & RIAA came to a (ha ha) “voluntary” agreement on a six strikes program to deal with “repeat infringers.” There was a lot of history behind this, which we won’t rehash, but the shorter version is that, for many years, the MPAA & RIAA have stupidly believed that if you could kick people off the internet (completely) if they’re caught infringing three times, that would magically make piracy go away. They got a “three strikes” law passed in a few countries, starting with France. It was a complete disaster, as basically everyone who wasn’t from the MPAA and RIAA predicted.

In the US, it became clear that there wasn’t the political appetite to push through a three strikes law, so instead parts of the government, starting with the White House, started putting tremendous pressure on ISPs to work out a deal. The negotiations took a very, very long time. There were lots of rumors about them and then radio silence — until the “six strikes” deal was announced. The “compromise” was that (1) it was six strikes instead of three and (2) after six strikes… nothing happened. The key aspect of the three strikes plans the legacy entertainment industry had pushed was that you lose your internet connection. But the ISPs, rightfully, considered that a complete dealbreaker and basically refused any deal with a cut off.

Of course, just months after the agreement was reached, the whole SOPA/PIPA thing happened, and ISPs realized that they probably could have pushed back even harder and not agreed to a crummy deal. The implementation of the plan was delayed repeatedly, and it was believed that some of the ISPs wanted to renegotiate post-SOPA.

The plan finally went into effect, and just as lots of people predicted, it had no real impact. Just as everywhere else where this plan went into effect, people who really wanted to find infringing works continued to do so. They just found ways of avoiding being spotted. It certainly didn’t magically make people want to go out and buy stuff. The organization that was set up to manage the six strikes program, the Center for Copyright Information (CCI) bravely put on its best Baghdad Bob beret and insisted that the plan was working great — even as leaked documents showed that Hollywood knew from early on that the plan was a dud.

And now it’s dead:

Major internet providers are ending a four-year-old system in which consumers received ?copyright alerts? when they viewed peer-to-peer pirated content.

The ISPs, studios, and record labels did not extend a pact that implemented the voluntary program, viewed as a way to fight piracy without the need for congressional legislation. When it debuted in 2013, it was viewed as a major new initiative to fight piracy, with Internet users subject to repeated notices if they continued to access infringing content.

But, true to form, the MPAA wants to point the finger at everyone but itself for its own failures to stop treating fans as criminals:

Although no reason was given for ending the program, the MPAA, in a statement from its general counsel, indicated frustration at the inability to stop repeat infringers.

?These repeat infringers are the ones who drive ongoing and problematic P2P piracy,? Steven Fabrizio, executive vice president and global general counsel at the MPAA, said in a statement. ?In fact, an estimated 981 million movies and TV shows were downloaded in the U.S. last year using P2P. ?

Left out of this, of course, is the fact that the movie studios had the best year ever last year in terms of US box office revenue. And that more and more people are happy to pay for services like Netflix, even as the studios have been basically pulling tons of movies from those legal services.

We’ve been saying it for nearly two decades, but piracy is not the problem. Not listening to your customers is the problem. The MPAA is so focused on punishment it never recognizes that the carrot works better than the stick (which never actually works).

Of course, the MPAA still isn’t getting this lesson. It’s doubling down, which is why the BMG v. Cox case is so important to watch. Even before the six strikes plan went into effect, the legacy entertainment industry admitted that the real goal was to force ISPs to disconnect users. They planned to lump the six strikes plan in with a total misinterpretation of the DMCA to incorrectly argue that the DMCA actually requires ISPs to kick users off their service.

This reading is plainly wrong from what was in the DMCA and the negotiations around the DMCA. The law does require a policy to terminate “repeat infringers” but that was for online services (like a YouTube or a blog hosting company) and not for access providers. Unfortunately, in the Cox case, the judge seemed to get hung up on some unfortunate emails and a bizarre lack of understanding about how important an internet connection is for many people today, and ruled that ISPs do have to kick people off the internet.

That case is now on appeal, and basically all of the usual suspects (on each side) have been filing amicus briefs to push the 4th Circuit one way or the other. But a decision on that should be coming in the not too distant future, and that’s going to be super important. If BMG’s win is upheld, then it may be seen as a requirement for ISPs to not just put in place their own three- to six-strikes type plan, but that it would need to kick people off the internet based on such accusations (not convictions) of infringement.

And none of that will make people buy a product they don’t want.

The MPAA has had a couple of decades to stop attacking its biggest fans as criminals and to actually focus on providing them what they want. And it keeps on failing to just focus on that. Instead, it keeps overreacting to piracy and getting infatuated with the idea that it must break the internet. The death of the official six strikes plan was inevitable. It was a dumb plan from the start. But the real issue here is what will happen in court. Will the court uphold a dangerous plan that will lead to innocent people being kicked completely off the internet? Or will it recognize that maybe, just maybe, Hollywood’s focus on control shouldn’t ruin people’s lives?

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, dmca 512, isps, six strikes, three strikes, voluntary agreements
Companies: bmg, cci, cox, mpaa, riaa

French National Assembly Votes (Sorta) To Finally Kill Its Three Strikes Hadopi Program

from the interesting-move dept

Remember Hadopi? Back when the legacy copyright players were totally focused on kicking individuals off the internet via a “three strikes” program, France and its former President Nicolas Sarkozy, married to a musician, was the first to embrace the idea of kicking casual file sharers off the internet (we’ll leave aside the fact that Sarkozy was a mass infringer himslef). The program that was built up around the plan was eventually called Hadopi, and created a big bureaucracy to send out threat notices. The program turned out to be a complete disaster. It issued many notices, but really had to massage the numbers to make its activities look reasonable. Even when people did lose their internet access, there were problems. A detailed academic study of Hadopi found that it was a miserable failure that actually resulted in an increase in infringement.

When a new administration came into office, they made it clear that they were not impressed by Hadopi, and intended to cut its funding. And while there were efforts to kill it entirely, the government basically just gutted the system and let it live on as a shell of what it once was.

However, it looks like there’s been a renewed effort to kill Hadopi completely, and it actually passed a vote in the National Assembly — but with some caveats.

In a nearly empty chamber, the French National Assembly voted to end the Hadopi institution and law in 2022, Next Inpact reports. What?s noteworthy is that only 7 of the 577 Members of Parliament were present at the vote, and the amendment passed with four in favor and three against.

The decision goes against the will of the sitting Government, which failed to have enough members present at the vote. While it?s being seen as quite an embarrassment, the amendment still has to pass the senate, which seems unlikely without Government support.

In other words, Hadopi will likely still live on to see another day, despite its already diminished state. However, the folks who put together this bit of a publicity stunt say that they’re calling attention to the fact that the government has called in the past for the end of Hadopi, and they’re just trying to get the government to commit to something:

?Related Greens? MP Isabelle Attard says that it?s time to end the ?schizophrenic? behavior of the Government on the matter. ?A choice has to be made at some point. We can?t call out Hadopi as useless and, years later, still let it linger on,? she says.

While it?s doubtful that the amendment means the definite end of Hadopi, it certainly puts it back on the political agenda. Whether this will lead to actual change will become apparent in the future.

For all intents and purposes, Hadopi is a shell of what it once was. It’s also a standing monument to the stupidity of three strikes/graduated response plans. The government should kill it off, but while it lives on, it’s a demonstration of how demands by legacy copyright industries to push for ways to protect legacy business models can create truly wasteful government spending that serves no legitimate purpose.

Filed Under: copyright, france, hadopi, piracy, three strikes

Three Strikes System In Australia 'Too Costly' For Industry; Seems Piracy Not Such A Massive Problem After All

from the kangaroo-courts dept

It was evident when the “three strikes” or “graduated response” was first proposed in France back in 2009 that it was a really bad idea. After all, in its crudest form, it cuts people off from what has become a necessity for modern life — the Internet — simply because they are accused of copyright infringement, an area of law that is notoriously full of uncertainties. Given that inauspicious start, it’s no surprise that over the years, the three strikes system has failed everywhere, with some of the early adopters either dropping it, or putting it on hold. No wonder, then, that a latecomer, Australia, is also having problems with implementing the approach, as this report from c|net makes clear:

> A three strikes scheme to track down individual pirates and send them warning letters about their downloading habits has been all but quashed, after rights holders and ISPs decided that manually targeting and contacting downloaders would be too costly.

However, as in the US, where the “six strikes” scheme is also flailing, the Australian copyright industry has no intention of seizing this opportunity to move on from this punitive approach. Instead, it wants to make it worse by automating the process. Village Roadshow Co-CEO Graham Burke, who Techdirt wrote about back in 2014, is quoted as saying:

> “When automation occurs, instead of costing AU$16 or AU$20 a notice [about US$12 or US$15], which is just prohibitive, it will cost cents per notice,” he said. “In other words, the ISPs will have an automated system that can be done simply, as opposed to at the moment it’s manual.”

Of course, an automated system is likely to be plagued by false positives even more than one operated by humans. The much lower cost involved — cents rather than dollars per letter — means that there will be no economic incentive to check for these in order to keep the numbers down, which are likely to balloon as a result. In other words, it seems clear that the three strikes system in Australia is about to get much worse — and it was bad to begin with.

But there is one piece of positive news to emerge from this story. The Australian copyright industry says that it is not worth pursuing alleged copyright infringement cases unless the three strikes system costs almost nothing to use. Clearly, then, the real scale of the losses caused by online piracy is nowhere near as great as companies love to claim, otherwise basic economics would push them to use even a manual system. That’s yet another reason to get rid of the flawed and disproportionate graduated response.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: australia, automated, copyright, costs, graham burke, piracy, three strikes
Companies: village roadshow

The Details Of Why Judge O'Grady Rejected Cox's DMCA Defense: Bad Decisions By Cox May Lead To Bad Law

from the ugh dept

As we noted a couple of weeks ago, Judge Liam O’Grady rejected Cox Communication’s attempt to protect itself under the DMCA’s safe harbor concerning a “repeat infringer policy.” At the time, he only said he would explain his reasons later, and late yesterday he released his full opinion. It, unfortunately, brings to mind the phrase “hard cases make bad law.”

As we explained when BMG and Round Hill Music (with the help of Rightscorp) first sued Cox Communications, the company seemed like a slightly odd choice. While it was the largest of the internet access providers not to sign onto the so-called “voluntary” six-strikes “Copyright Alert System” hammered out between the RIAA/MPAA and big ISPs, it already had a reputation for actually disconnecting those accused of repeat infringements. None of the other major ISPs do that. In fact, a key prong of the whole six strikes thing was that no one would be getting kicked off the internet.

However, the RIAA has long insisted that the DMCA’s 512(i) required ISPs to kick people off the internet — even as that theory had never really been tested until now. Many others had assumed 512(i)’s “repeat infringer” policy only really referred to service providers who actually had direct control over content — i.e., a YouTube or SoundCloud style site. Kicking people entirely off the internet because one person who uses their account to infringe is quite draconian.

The issue here, however, gets muddied, because Cox made such a mess of its “repeat infringer policy.” Yes, it alone among the major ISPs will kick people off. But (and this is the important bit), its internal policy was apparently to kick people off… and then allow them to sign right back up for new service, at which point the count on “infringements” would be reset to 0. For obvious reasons, that feels pretty sketchy, and it’s the key point that Judge O’Grady focuses on. Doing something that feels sketchy will often obscure the more important legal arguments. Judge O’Grady basically tosses aside all the other issues because of this “bad behavior” by Cox, as immortalized in some internal emails.

The record conclusively establishes that before the fall of 2012 Cox did not implement its repeat infringer policy. Instead, Cox publicly purported to comply with its policy, while privately disparaging and intentionally circumventing the DMCA?s requirements. Cox employees followed an unwritten policy put in place by senior members of Cox?s abuse group by which accounts used to repeatedly infringe copyrights would be nominally terminated, only to be reactivated upon request. Once these accounts were reactivated, customers were given clean slates, meaning the next notice of infringement Cox received linked to those accounts would be considered the first in Cox?s graduate response procedure.

Numerous emails in the record, portions of which are reproduced below, support these conclusions. Even viewed in the light most favorable to Cox, the Court finds the contents of the emails cannot be explained away. Cox?s attempts to recast the emails are unavailing. Nor can they be pinned on low level employees whose views had no real significance. The name that appears again and again on these emails is Jason Zabek, Cox?s Manager of Customer Abuse Operations.

> In 2009, Zabek sent an email titled, ?DMCA Terminations,? to the abuse group that said: > > As we move forward in this challenging time we want to hold on to every subscriber we can. With this in mind if a customer is terminated for DMCA, you are able to reactivate them after you give them a stern warning about violating our AUP and the DMCA. We must still terminate in order for us to be in compliance with safe harbor but once termination is complete, we have fulfilled our obligation. After you reactivate them the DMCA ?counter? restarts; The procedure restarts with the sending of warning letters, just like a first offense. This is to be an unwritten semi-policy . . . We do not talk about it or give the subscriber any indication that reactivating them is normal. Use your best judgment and remember to do what is right for our company and subscribers. . . . This only pertains to DMCA violations. It does not pertain to spammers, hackers, etc.

And, based on that, the court decides that Cox does not have a “reasonably implemented” termination policy for repeat infringers. There are a bunch of other similar emails, indicating that this absolutely was Cox’s policy. Of course, all of that obscures the question of whether or not 5129(i) is meant to apply to access providers, rather than online service providers.

Separately, the judge buys BMG’s claim that in late 2012, Cox actually stopped terminating accounts almost entirely (leaving aside, again, that no other major access provider terminates anyone). Again, some questionable internal behavior by Cox comes back to bite them. The judge highlights a case where Cox internally kept discussing a user who was frequently accused of infringing, and who they threatened to cut off… but didn’t — even admitting it’s at least partly because of the large amount of money the customer pays.

In June, a senior engineer in the abuse group said this about a customer who had been given a final suspension and advised to remove all P2P file-sharing programs: ?This customer will likely fail again, but let?s give him one more change [sic]. [H]e pays 317.63 a month.?

The judge uses this and other examples to note that Cox knew of “repeat infringers” but didn’t terminate them. Of course, the vague language of 512(i) doesn’t say that you have to terminate someone as soon as you know they’re repeat infringers — just that you have a “reasonably implemented policy.” However, Judge O’Grady uses these examples to suggest the policy implementation is not reasonable.

Cox’s defense to that is it can’t know for sure if people are infringing based solely on accusations. This is correct, but Judge O’Grady doesn’t care.

Although Cox was under no duty to monitor for infringement, Cox did not have leeway to wait until an account holder was adjudicated as an infringer to find that circumstances were appropriate for termination. As explained above, the Court disagrees that a repeat infringer policy applies only to those who have been held liable in a copyright suit. Rather, an account holder must be considered an infringer, at minimum, when the service provider has actual knowledge that the account holder is using its services for infringing purposes. Nor do service providers have complete discretion to define ?appropriate circumstances.? Appropriate circumstances arise when an account holder is repeatedly or flagrantly infringing copyrights. Thus, when Cox had actual knowledge of particular account holders who blatantly or repeatedly infringed, the responsibility shifted to Cox to terminate their accounts.

That, alone is quite troubling. Kicking people off the internet based merely on accusations of infringement is really dangerous, especially given the number of false infringement allegations that we see.

The one good thing is that the court rejects BMG’s troubling definition of “making available.” This has been a fight that’s been going on for ages. Copyright law says that one of the exclusive rights given to a copyright holder is the “distribution” right. What is not settled law at all is whether or not “making available” violates this distribution right, or if copyright holders have to show actual distribution. The courts are somewhat split on this, with O’Grady recognizing that merely making available is not distribution.

At the threshold, the Court questions the evidence relied on by those courts that purportedly establishes that distribution is interchangeable with publication. Those courts build upon comments in legislative history as well as an excerpt from the Supreme Court?s decision in Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises…. Legislative history cannot override the plain meaning of ?distribution? under § 106(3), however, and Harper & Row involved a narrow discussion of first publication and not the meaning of distribution and publication generally….

Nor does the definition of ?publication? support a broader reading of the distribution right. The Act defines ?publication? as

> the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication.

…The first sentence of the definition tracks the language in § 106(3), making it clear that all distributions are publications. It does not follow from that proposition that the inverse?all publications are distributions?is also true…. In short, § 101 provides no support for BMG?s ?making available? theory.

There’s some more in the ruling, but it seems pretty clear that Cox’s own internal emails and policies really sunk the company here, and out of that could come some potentially dangerous law. Some have been making a big deal over the fact that Cox’s insurance company, Beazly, has filed for declaratory judgment that it’s not responsible for any judgment in this case — but again, that seems to focus on Cox’s own actions, which may not apply more broadly to other providers.

Also, important is the fact that the trial still is about to go forward. Losing the safe harbor protections does not, necessarily, mean that Cox will lose the overall case, but it’s an ominous start. Judge O’Grady’s rulings and statements so far certainly do not bode well for the company. It’s also a little bit ridiculous that O’Grady focuses so much on Cox’s bad behavior, but leaves out Rightscorp’s much worse behavior — but I can see where he’s coming from.

In the end, this is unfortunate and it’s certain that this case will be appealed, no matter how it turns out. But the bad behavior by Cox poisons the well a bit in terms of focusing on the rather important question of what 512(i) actually means, and whether it really applies to internet access providers. As it stands right now, however, a potentially dangerous precedent could be set, whereby people could be forced to completely lose internet access based on mere accusations of copyright infringement. It’s hard to believe that Congress intended such a result, but that’s how Judge O’Grady is now reading the law.

Filed Under: 512i, copyright, dmca, liam o'grady, repeat infringer, safe harbors, termination policy, three strikes
Companies: bmg, cox, cox communications, rightscorp

Judge Mocks Public Interest Concerns About Kicking People Off Internet, Tells Cox It's Not Protected By The DMCA

from the that's-a-problem dept

Judge Liam O’Grady — the same guy who helped the US government take all of Kim Dotcom’s stuff, is the judge handling the wacky Rightscorp-by-proxy lawsuit against Cox Communications. The key issue: Rightscorp, on behalf of BMG and Round Hill Music flooded Cox Communications with infringement notices, trying to shake loose IP addresses as part of its shake down. Cox wasn’t very happy about cooperating, and in response BMG and Round Hill sued Cox, claiming that 512(i) of the DMCA requires ISPs to kick people off the internet if they’re found to be “repeat infringers.” Historically, it has long been believed that 512(i) does not apply to internet access/broadband providers like Cox, but rather to online service providers who are providing a direct service on the internet (like YouTube or Medium or whatever). However, the RIAA and its friends have hinted for a while that they’d like a court to interpret 512(i) to apply to internet access providers, creating a defacto “three strikes and you lose all internet access” policy. Rightscorp (with help from BMG and Round Hill Music) have decided to put that to the test.

This is a big, big deal. If the case goes against Cox, then it would create a massive problem for the public on the internet. Accusations of infringement could potentially lead to you totally losing access to the internet, which could really destroy people’s lives, given how important the internet is for work and life these days. The details of the case look like they should favor Cox pretty easily. After all, Cox pointed out that Rightscorp only had licenses from the publishes, meaning they had no copyright in the sound recording — yet they admitted to downloading the sound recording, suggesting that, if anything, Rightscorp was a mass infringer. On top of that there was pretty strong evidence that Rightscorp does not act in good faith in how it runs its shakedown practice, telling people that they have to take their computers to the police to prove their innocence (really).

Unfortunately, as Eriq Gardner reports, Judge O’Grady has ruled against Cox on a very key point: does its current policy grant it safe harbor under the DMCA. The judge said no, though we’re still waiting for the full ruling as to why.

The bigger story is O’Grady’s determination that there is “no genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants reasonably implemented a repeat-infringer policy as is required by §512(i) of the DMCA,” granting a motion that Cox is not entitled to a safe harbor defense.

Now, just because you’re not protected by the safe harbor it does not mean that you are automatically guilty of infringement. There are cases where sites have not qualified for the safe harbor and still prevailed. But it does make things more difficult and complicated and, much more importantly, opens the door to lots and lots of mischief by the RIAAs and MPAAs of the world to use this to kick people off the internet entirely based on accusations of copyright infringement. That’s immensely worrisome.

O’Grady doesn’t seem to think that kicking people off the internet is really a big deal. Earlier in the case, we’ve discovered, in the process of flat out rejecting an attempt by Public Knowledge and EFF to file an amicus brief, Judge O’Grady made his views clear:

I read the brief. It adds absolutely nothing helpful at all. It is a combination of describing the horrors that one endures from losing the Internet for any length of time. Frankly, it sounded like my son complaining when I took his electronics away when he watched YouTube videos instead of doing homework. And it’s completely hysterical.

That’s his response to two well known public interest groups explaining to him the “real world harmful effects” of Rightscorp’s copyright shake-down trolling business. But he didn’t want to hear any of it. Because protecting the ability of Americans to not be the subjects of extortion schemes and to enable them to communicate and work is “hysterical” and no different from kids not doing their homework because of too much YouTube.

The details here matter, but I would imagine that Cox is likely to appeal. One hopes that the appeals court is more open to listening to the concerns over copyright trolling and kicking people off the internet.

Filed Under: 512i, copyright, dmca, liam o'grady, safe harbors, three strikes
Companies: bmg, cox communications, rightscorp, round hill music

Carl Malamud Asks YouTube To Institute Three Strikes Policy For Those Who Abuse Takedowns

from the a-potential-solution dept

We write frequently about those who abuse the DMCA either directly for the sake of censorship or, more commonly, because some are in such a rush to take down anything and everything that they don’t bother (or care) to check to see if what they’re taking down is actually infringing. The latter, while common, could potentially expose those issuing the takedowns to serious legal liability, though the courts are still figuring out to what extent.

Last week, we wrote about Boston public television station WGBH issuing a bogus takedown on some public domain (government created) video that Carl Malamud had uploaded to YouTube. That doesn’t look like an automated takedown, but rather someone working for WGBH’s legal team who just decided that anything with “American Experience” in a title must be infringing. Malamud has now published the letter that he sent YouTube, about the whole situation. It includes some more details concerning the insulting manner in which WGBH’s legal team, Susan Kantrowitz and Eric Brass, handled the situation, including Brass telling Malamud that this wasn’t a big deal because deleting this “particular film” was not that important.

Meanwhile, I finally reached the WGBH legal department. Susan L. Kantrowitz, General Counsel, wrote to me that ?It is highly unusual for Amex to be in a title and not be one of our shows? and they would ?address it on Monday.? Eric Brass, Corporate Counsel, wrote that ?the take down request very well may have been an error, but given that it is late on a Friday afternoon in August, I may not be able to get back to you (or YouTube) until Monday.? He then wrote me back and indicated that while perhaps my YouTube account was important, this ?particular film? was certainly not. I spoke to him on the phone and he repeated that no harm had been done, but and that after he completed his investigation he would,?follow up with something in writing that might be helpful for you if a question arises down the road about the take down.?

I want to stress that the timing of this takedown was not mine, it was instigated by WGBH and it was done deliberately as a formal legal action. Mr. Brass seemed quite peeved that I was upset, even though I was just minding my own business on the Internet when some hooligans from Boston came over and smacked me for no reason at all, then left for a weekend at the Cape.

The process of creating a copyright strike is not a casual one. WGBH had to go through several screens to identify the video, fill out their contact information, and checked numerous boxes indicating that they understood this was the beginning of a legal process, then signed a statement indicating that all statements were true and that they were in fact the true and correct owners of that film or portions of that film. In order to respond to that legal accusation, I had to go through a similar process of swearing under oath and accepting a court?s jurisdiction for my counter-claim.

Because of all of this, Malamud has suggested that YouTube institute a similar reverse three strikes policy for those who abuse the DMCA takedown process:

I believe that incorrectly posting a video that is under copyright is in fact worthy of a copyright strike. However, I think the opposite of that should be true. WGBH committed a copyright foul and should be prohibited from having the capability to take another user?s films down for a six-month period. If they commit 3 copyright fouls, their account should be revoked. WGBH personnel should be required to go to copyright school so that they fully understand their responsibilities under the law.

Given the blithe and uncaring attitude of WGBH legal staff, they should also be required to undergo copyright school. Their blase attitude was not impressive, and I can just imagine the reaction of WGBH if somebody had improperly taken down one of their media properties would not have been nearly so casual.

The idea of a reverse three strikes policy is not a new one. We first wrote about it back in 2008. Unfortunately, under the current wording of the DMCA, it would be very difficult to do it properly, but it does seem worth considering, considering just how frequency such a power is abused.

Filed Under: abuse, carl malamud, censorship, copyright, copyright school, dmca, takedowns, three strikes
Companies: wgbh, youtube

Ridiculous Ruling In Ireland Requires ISP To Kick Those Accused (Not Convicted) Of File Sharing Off The Internet

from the because-piracy! dept

There just seems to be something about the way that some people’s brains function (or not) when the word “piracy” is introduced. Over in Ireland, there’s been an incredibly long running battle over whether or not internet access providers need to kick people off the internet if they’ve been accused (not convicted) of file sharing three times. Such “three strikes” rules have been put in place in a few countries, and the evidence shows that they don’t work at all. Not even in the slightest. They don’t slow down the rates of piracy for any extended period of time (sometimes they show a very brief drop before people figure out other ways). They certainly don’t lead more people to buy content. France, famously, led the way with the very first three strikes law, which the country has already dropped.

Over in Ireland, the fight over three strikes has been going on for nearly a decade. Back in 2008, the recording industry sued Eircom, the large Irish ISP, claiming that the company was required by law to implement a three strikes regime. Eventually, in an effort to avoid legal costs, Eircom caved and agreed to implement a three strikes plan, but with a condition: the recording industry also had to pressure competing ISPs to implement a similar plan so that Eircom customers didn’t go fleeing. The recording industry did just that. The ISPs pushed back and seemed to be vindicated when the Irish Data Protection Commission ruled that a three strikes plan violated consumer privacy, and Irish judges found no legal basis for such rules.

Of course, the recording industry fought back, and a court flat out rejected the Data Protection Commission’s findings, and insisted there wasn’t any privacy issue at all with three strikes.

And, thus, we get back to the lawsuits against ISPs with a judge now ruling against ISP UPC and making some rather astounding statements in the process. The judge, Brian Cregan, appears to have become a true believer in the myths that the recording industry is spreading, and to him “piracy” seems to justify any and all punishment, without any clear concern as to whether or not anyone’s actually broken the law, or whether or not three strikes plans even work. These quotes are fairly astounding:

Mr Justice Cregan said that there was “wholesale theft” taking place on the UPC network. He said that the constitutional rights of “a whole class of persons are not just being infringed but are being destroyed”. The downloading of music for free is destroying the intellectual property rights of creative artists and should be a matter of great concern in any civilised society, he said.

Except, that’s not true. Copyright infringement and “theft” are two separate (and very different) things. And, no constitutional rights are “being destroyed” at all. If someone’s rights are being harmed via copyright infringement, those individuals or companies have every right to bring legal cases against those who are the ones actually engaging in infringement. Arguing that ISPs should automatically cut people off of the entire internet based merely on accusations (that have a long history of not being accurate) would seem to be “destroying” the due process rights of many more people than any copyright infringement. Besides, I would also think that “a matter of great concern to any civilized society” would be things like “due process” and better enabling communications and access to information for all — like the internet does. But, no. If you happen to download a song you like without paying for it, apparently you should be barred from the internet.

“The current generation of writers, performers and interpreters of music cannot have their livelihoods destroyed by advances in technology which allow persons to breach their constitutional rights with impunity.?

Two points on this. Any realistic look at “the current generation of writers, performers and interpreters of music” would recognize that it is an amazing time to be a creative person because of the internet. Thanks to the internet, artists no longer are solely reliant on giant gatekeepers to pick them out of everyone else. Instead, they can use these platforms to create, to connect with fans, to promote, to distribute and to monetize their works. More words are being written, more videos are being filmed and more music is being recorded today than any time in history. It’s difficult to see how one can possibly square that reality with this fantasy world of Judge Cregan’s in which he believes that writers, performers and musicians are in trouble.

The reality is that it’s merely the business models of the old gatekeepers that have been challenged. But that is the nature of the free market. If you cannot keep up with the changing times, you go out of business. But Cregan has apparently decided that the world should always look like it did briefly in the 1980s, and the internet upsets all of that, so clearly, it’s the internet that should go.

Not only did Judge Cregan decide that UPC needs to put in place a three strikes plan, but that it should have to cover most of the costs itself, apparently blaming the technology itself for the struggles of the legacy recording industry:

Mr Justice Cregan said the cost of setting up this system had been put at between €800,000 and €940,000, three-quarters of which UPC had argued should be paid for by the music companies.

The judge said however given the music companies’ constitutional rights “are being destroyed” by UPC’s customers, he believed UPC should pay 80 per cent and the music companies the rest.

Cregan is apparently so sure of himself on this issue — despite what appears to be an astounding confusion over what’s actually happening in the world, that he further rejected UPC’s argument that this is a matter for the legislature, not the courts. Instead, Cregan seems to believe that the courts can magically will into place a new regulation kicking people off the internet. He further rejected requests to refer this matter to the European Court of Justice, insisting that his interpretation of the law is plenty.

It is one thing to argue that a three strikes rule makes sense (despite all of the real world evidence to the contrary). But it is quite bizarre to then justify it based on additional claims about the state of creators today that are simply false. Is this how the Irish judicial system really works? Based on fairy tales and what the judge believes, rather than facts?

Filed Under: brian cregan, copyright, ireland, piracy, privacy, three strikes
Companies: eircom, ifpi, upc