Business Software Alliance emphasizes both should only be the result of “voluntary” agreements with ISPs, but fear of legal action or legislation is sure to make ISPs consider the request mandatory.
In an update to its position on how best to deter online piracy, the Business Software Alliance (BSA) says it’s for Internet disconnection of repeat file-sharers and a content filtering regime so long as both are the result of voluntary agreements with ISPs.
When it comes to Internet disconnection the BSA, which represents a number of the world’s largest software makers and whose chief mission is to fight copyright infringement of their products, does, however, want the accused to be guaranteed “due process and, at a minimum, a right of appeal to a judicial authority, except when such penalties are imposed as a result of a breach of contract with the service provider.”
It’s the latter part of the statement that makes the first two concerns sort of meaningless. It smacks of a backdoor attempt to disconnect file-sharers without having to rely on the judicial process
From the BSA site:
Such sanctions against individual repeat offenders shall be based on either:
i) Breach of contract, i.e., the terms of subscriber’s contract with the service provider. (Contractual mechanisms are a helpful and efficient way of dealing with online piracy and should be encouraged and widely implemented.) or
ii) Through a decision by an administrative or judicial entity, provided such entity gives all parties an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence, and that the decision can be appealed before an impartial court. Before an order becomes final, parties shall have the opportunity to have the order stayed pending appeal to courts.
Notice how it even says that the practice of using breach of contract mechanisms should be “encouraged” and ‘widely implemented?” It basically gives ISPs its blessing to disconnect accused file-sharers since copyright infringement, even if based on unsubstantiated accusations, is one of the things that violates a customer’s Acceptable Use Policy.
Here’s the Acceptable Use Policy for Cox Communication’s :
2. Intellectual Property Infringement. You may not use the Service to post, copy, transmit, or disseminate any content that infringes the patents, copyrights, trade secrets, trademark, or propriety rights of any party. Cox assumes no responsibility, and you assume all risks regarding the determination of whether material is in the public domain, or may otherwise be used by you for such purposes.
See how it emphasizes the customer’s responsibility for determining the validity of evidence?
The BSA also claims it opposes content filtering, but uses the same “unless it’s done voluntarily by your ISP” rhetoric.
From the BSA:
a) The voluntary development and use of anti-piracy content identification and filtering technologies should continue unimpeded: this self-regulatory approach is the effective way to address piracy. The specific technologies themselves should be developed through voluntary processes open to all affected stakeholders, and the results should be based on consensus of the participants.
So it’s another backdoor attempt to battle illegal file-sharing without legislation and therefore any sort of consumer protections. The fear of legal action or legislation is sure to make ISPs consider any “voluntary” requests mandatory ones instead.
The BSA does say that it opposes the “imposition of broad anti-piracy content identification and filtering technological requirements applicable to all Internet users, or all computers and software used to access the Internet, by legislation, administrative fiat or adjudication,” but this is probably more from the business concern that localities could begin filtering software deemed inappropriate or objectionable rather than from a principled one.
It’s always interesting to see industries based on the work of creative minds do their best to make sure creativity is stifled elsewhere to protect their own interests.
Stay tuned.
jared@zeropaid.com
.
NOTE: Don’t forget to check out the BSA’s odd “To Catch a Pirate” video in case you missed it.
Related Posts
- RIAA Wants Anti-Virus Software to Filter Pirated Content?
- Anti-Piracy Group Wants “3-Strikes,” Calls Throttling “Waste of Time”
- Aussie Net Filtering to be “Voluntary Mandatory”
- Australian Anti-ISP Filtering Protesters to Rally Dec 13th
- Taiwan Passes “Three-Strikes” Anti-P2P law
Loading ...
Most people now seem to accept that governments throughout the world have the ability to take your personal data held by these providers for their own use when they so wish. This includes conversations, text, messages, e-mails and anything else stored/logged you can think of. Therefore, whilst authorities can control Cloud-based services, they fear P2P. The only way of dealing with people interacting P2P is to cut them off.
“[...] (Contractual mechanisms are a helpful and efficient way of dealing with online piracy and should be encouraged and widely implemented.)”
It just shows how far biased interests can go once they are overlooked. Without any substantial or valid justification, they deem mere file-sharing as “online piracy” to make it seem illegal and then encourage implementation of contractual mechanisms, since “In law, a contract is a binding legal agreement that is enforceable in a court of law.” If BSA is suggesting that all ISPs must write up their contracts with the same biases as BSA does, then clearly BSA thinks that all Internet subscribers use the Internet for identical purposes. It is just irrational thinking.