Techdirt. Stories filed under "disconnect"

Germany's Curious Income Divide On Infringement Remedies: High-Earners Support Content Blocking, Oppose Disconnection

Leigh Beadon — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 08:43:13 PST

Recently, the American Assembly released Copy Culture In The US & Germany, a report based on an extensive survey about attitudes and practices surrounding media consumption and piracy in the two countries. (Disclosure: We supplied the design and layout work for the report.) It contains lots of interesting facts, and some very surprising ones—such as more support for content blocking than one would expect given the public reaction to things like SOPA and ACTA. We've already discussed one of the important broad takeaways—even more evidence that pirates buy more media—but amidst the smaller details in the survey are several other points that are worthy of a closer look.

First up is a curious trend that emerged in Germany: when asked if copyright infringers should face disconnection of their internet access as a penalty, opinion was roughly split among low-income respondents, while opposition was higher among those who earned more:

Opposition to disconnection also rises sharply with income (which in turn correlates with the propensity to buy media). Among penalty supporters who make more than €3000/month, 20% support disconnection; 74% oppose it.

Should Infringers Face Disconnection? (Germany, By Income)

As the report notes, this could have something to do with the fact that higher earners also buy more media—though that still doesn't make it entirely clear why this should be the case. Even more curiously, high-earners were more likely to support content blocking by ISPs, search engines and social networks, but still more likely to oppose internet monitoring.

It seems like there's a lot of room for conjecture as to what these patterns mean, if anything, so I'm throwing this open to our readers, especially those in Germany: what social, economic or other factors that correlate with income might explain this trend?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Hadopi Sends Info On Those Accused (Not Convicted) Of Repeat Infringement On To Prosecutors

Mike Masnick — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 06:38:57 PST

You may remember last fall's numbers concerning how many first, second and third strikes Hadopi, the French agency in charge of kicking people off the internet for possible copyright infringement, was sending out. Now come reports that France is finally moving beyond just the strikes, and has passed along info on those accused (not convicted) of infringement to "prosecutors" for the next stage, which could result in them losing internet access.

The report also notes that Nicolas Sarkozy, who was the original champion of three strikes plans, is already looking to expand the law to go after cyberlockers rather than just peer-to-peer, as is the case with the current Hadopi plan, apparently. I'm sure, in an effort to support such a move, politicians will push the misleading claim that Hadopi has actually worked, even if the actual data suggests what really worked was wider availability of legitimate services and tools.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

US ISP Suddenlink Claims The DMCA Requires They Disconnect Users

Mike Masnick — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:22:00 PDT

TorrentFreak has the news that US cable ISP Suddenlink has implemented its own form of a three strikes policy, and defends it by falsely claiming the DMCA requires it. Torrentfreak has the transcript of a discussion between a customer who has been cut off and a Suddenlink rep blaming the DMCA:

Customer: I want to reconnect my internet service. They said I got 3 DMCA letters and they said that by law I had to be disconnected. Is that true?

Suddenlink rep: Yes, your internet was disconnected due to DMCA. When the internet is disconnected due to DMCA, it can not be reconnected for a minimum of 6 months.

Customer: The DMCA makes that requirement?

Suddenlink rep: Yes.

Customer: So you're stating, for the record, that by law, the DMCA law, that you have to disconnect users for receiving 3 DMCA letters?

Suddenlink rep: You have no choice in the matter.

Suddenlink rep: It is the DMCA policy that it can not be reconnected for 6 months.

Suddenlink rep: It may be the DMCA policy or it may be the way we go about following the DMCA guidelines.

Customer: The law states that?

Suddenlink rep: Once the 3rd offense occurs, it can not be reconnected for 6 months.

Suddenlink Rep: The information I have on the DMCA states: This law was enacted in 1998 to protect against illegal downloading of copyrighted material like movies, music, etc. As an Internet Service Provider (ISP), Suddenlink , and other ISPs, must implement a policy of terminating internet service of customers who repeatedly share copyrighted files.

This is, of course, not true. The DMCA has no requirement that ISPs disconnect people after three accusations (not convictions) -- and it especially doesn't say that ISPs don't need to offer a refund when they do this. For all the fighting by the record labels trying to get a three strikes policy into law and complaining about the DMCA, perhaps it makes them happy to know that some ISPs are simply pretending the DMCA is a three strikes policy.

Of course, customers may think otherwise, and may prefer to find an ISP that actually believes in due process and actually supports its users against unsubstantiated accusations of file sharing.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

France Plans Government Agency To Boot File Sharers Offline

Mike Masnick — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:05:00 PST

While the EU Parliament has warned about the civil rights violation represented by any "three strikes" laws that would kick file sharers offline after three accusations (not convictions) of file sharing, France has continued to move forward with just such a law. Michael Scott points us to the news that France is close to finalizing its legislation on the topic, which has one major difference from other "three strikes" laws: rather than the ISPs acting as the copyright police, it will be a new French government agency that will do the dirty work.

Yes, the law will propose an entirely new French bureaucracy, which would act as the intermediary between copyright holders and ISPs. If a copyright holder believes that someone is infringing on copyrights, it would send the info to the agency, who would investigate, get info from the ISP, and (if the agency believed infringement occurred) send out a threat letter to the individuals responsible. That agency would also have the ability to demand that an ISP cut a user off for repeat offenses. What's never explained is why any of this extra-judicial process is needed. Isn't there already a court of law in France that would allow a copyright holder to accuse an alleged infringer in court, where that alleged infringer could mount a defense to show that he or she was not guilty of infringement?

Furthermore, it's unclear why the government should be involved at all -- especially with the growing evidence out there that the "problem" of copyright infringement is simply a business model issue. Those who have put in place smart business models don't seem to have any problems at all with infringement. So why not just point those who are clinging to an obsolete business model to examples of those who have succeeded by embracing file sharing, and tell them it's time to adapt?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

UK ISP Claims It Will Disconnect Any Customers With Open WiFi

Mike Masnick — Mon, 3 Nov 2008 11:11:00 PST

Apparently the UK ISP Karoo has changed its terms of service to note that it will disconnect customers if it discovers they have an open WiFi access point. This isn't all that surprising, though it isn't particularly reasonable. When WiFi first came on the scene a few years back, there were a few ISPs that claimed the same thing -- though their reasoning was that they were afraid people with open WiFi were illegally "sharing" the connection with neighbors. Hell, there were some ISPs that wanted to charge you per computer you connected to a broadband connection. However, as WiFi became common, most ISPs dropped those restrictions, so it is interesting to see them coming back. The reason for cutting off open WiFi users is unclear -- and it's likely that Karoo will claim security reasons -- but TorrentFreak wonders if it has anything to do with the entertainment industry, which is sick of losing cases after people point out that, thanks to an open WiFi, it could be anyone that had used the connection. Either way, it seems like a good reason to find a new ISP, if your ISP is going to get involved in how you set up your local network.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

French Senate Approves 3 Strikes Law

Mike Masnick — Mon, 3 Nov 2008 06:52:00 PST

Despite the fact that the EU Parliament rejected the concept of a "three strikes" law for kicking people off the internet, and warned member countries that such laws interfered with civil rights and privacy rights of individuals, France is moving forward with such a law. The EU Parliament specifically had called on France to reconsider such a law, but the French Senate has approved the law by an overwhelming majority, 297 to 15. The law still needs approval from the lower house of Parliament as well, but it's disappointing that any government body would approve such a law after it's been shown to be both unnecessary and destructive.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story