How does this work?!

[Technical Ben]

http://torrentfreak.com/isps-have-to-identify-alleged-pirates-eu-court-rules-120419/

So, ISPs would have to legally give out personal customer data to anyone accusing an IP of copyright infringement?

Think I'll setup a forum and get a load of peoples personal details for the giggles. (Not!)
What other company has to give it's customer details out to other private companies upon request? Would this not break Data protection acts and lead to massive abuse?
I thought only the police and such could ask for evidence and information?

[Bill]

It's not "upon request", it's on the instructions of a court.

If Sweden's Supreme Court indeed decides that ePhone must hand over the information

[Technical Ben]

OH ok. That's less scary. But still a strange thing to take to court. I would have thought most businesses have no problem responding to legal and police requests. It's when they are frivolous and not police involved requests that it becomes a risk to personal data. We have already seen what happened with AC Law. 

[Bill]

OH ok. That's less scary. But still a strange thing to take to court. I would have thought most businesses have no problem responding to legal and police requests. It's when they are frivolous and not police involved requests that it becomes a risk to personal data. We have already seen what happened with AC Law. 

I'm not saying I agree with it, in fact I've got severe reservations- one of which you've mentioned.

Just wanted to clear up that it's not a matter of simply making a request.

[Technical Ben]

It's only an annoyance as I've seen what happens. Youtube became unusable to me when they stated using their "content detection" stuff. It gives false positives on just about every other video I upload, so not worth it for me to even use their service any more.

[.Griff.]

OH ok. That's less scary. But still a strange thing to take to court. I would have thought most businesses have no problem responding to legal and police requests.

More often than not, copyright infringement is dealt with as a civil matter, not a criminal matter so the Police wouldn't get involved.

Personally I think it's only right and proper that a customers personal details are only handed over when ordered to do so by a court. Otherwise all it needs is another Andrew Crosley to put in thousands of DSAR's and send people threatening letters.

I know some ISP's, BE I know for definite, refuse to hand over any customer details unless ordered to so by a court. I wonder what IDNet's stance is?

[Bill]

I understand your point of view, but Youtube are really just protecting their own backside.

I can understand the big companies- there's no reason why they should have to tolerate the wholesale theft of their intellectual property, but equally the general public should not have to worry about being the target of the sledgehammer that the companies tend to use.

Copyright law needs updating to cope with the internet as a distribution method, the law needs amending to provide more targeted application of both minor and serious copyright offences (and the companies made to use them!) and governments need to take a balanced view which doesn't mean "choose the option which provides the biggest tax take".

It may happen eventually... but in the meantime we can only hope that the courts apply the balance which is currently lacking on all sides

[Rik]

I know some ISP's, BE I know for definite, refuse to hand over any customer details unless ordered to so by a court. I wonder what IDNet's stance is?

The same, Griff.

[nowster]

When I ran a small ISP, I'd pass on the automatic notifications to the users, but never once received a request authorised by a court, so never passed out the users' details. I had a very small number of requests from the police in 14 years. RIPA prevents me from saying anything about those.

[Simon]

I know of someone who is constantly having their YouTube channel deactivated, due to them posting copyrighted material.  Strangely, it still keeps popping up again, but apparently, they are now facing the possibility of action from the RIAA, as someone objected strongly to their material being uploaded. 

[pctech]

Content distributors such as Youtube have no way of knowing whether the content being uploaded is subject to copyright and due to the amount of video being uploaded on an hourly basis its not practical to have a team checking what is being uploaded.

Therefore the automated systems have to err on the side of caution.

IP theft is wrong but it should be those that initially seed the torrents/upload the copyrighted material that legitimate enforcement authorities should go after rather than just going after everyone that happens to run microtorrent/bittorrent but it should not be left to legal weasels like Crossley to come up with moneymaking schemes such as speculative invoicing.

An IP address is definitely no proof of whom is using a machine/connection at a certain time an ISP knows which customer account a tracked IP is associated with either permanently or at a certain time.

This could then be taken up with the account holder as a network abuse issue, with the customer given a couple of warnings and then issued their MAC, if they don't move, just suspend their PPP access credentials.

When they've moved a couple of times and still commit the same offence the account holder's name could be entered on a central database maintained by perhaps ISPA which the account sign up process at an ISP checks during sign up and rejects them if they are found on the database.

This means that the account holder will be forced to use PAYG mobile broadband.

This is the only way to properly proceed.

Not sure about anyone else but when I signed my contract with my employer one of the things I had to read and consent to was the computing code which states I am responsible for all activities carried out using my network username and password.

[D-Dan]

Re YouTube, you can appeal, and you can have bans or restrictions overturned (I've done it with a video, which had audio blocked for copyright reasons, using US copyright law. I appealed on the basis that I'm a UK user and copyright had expired on the music. Now, there are restrictions in some countries, but not all (and it's all open in the UK again).

With regard to handing over details of users infringing copyright when downloading, a completely pointless exercise. Anyone who wants to get stuff can cover their tracks sufficiently well that they won't be caught (encrypted torrents, the tor network, direct IP rather than dns resolved addresses etc), meaning only the innocent have anything to fear.

[Technical Ben]

I know of someone who is constantly having their YouTube channel deactivated, due to them posting copyrighted material.  Strangely, it still keeps popping up again, but apparently, they are now facing the possibility of action from the RIAA, as someone objected strongly to their material being uploaded. 

I find it hilarious though, that they are still uploading. Which shows it does not work. But those who get a false positive or the kid that did it innocently (sharing is wrong?!) gets banned and never is able to use the service again. 

PS, how did you apeal D-Dan? I got a tick box for "yes/no" and nothing else. My appeal failed in that "we do not accept the answer "no"."

[D-Dan]

Ahh - the blocking of the audio was made on the instruction of WMG (Warner Music Group). I wrote directly to WMG (email) pointing out the copyright law in the UK, and threatening them with legal action for falsely enforcing copyright. Whilst they never replied, the UK ban was certainly lifted. I have the video playing on YT right now, audio as well.

[Simon]

[Technical Ben]

I just got a message "SME has claimed infringement" and got no other info. So I've not idea who to send emails to. I'll probably just host my own stuff from now on.

PS, great to know the large companies have the sticks to be their own judge jury and executioner (of media).

[D-Dan]

Well, SME is Sony (Sony Music Entertainment) - so there's a start. If you are sure that they have no claim on the music then you should take it up directly with them (a quick Google shows that they have form in this area, claiming copyright where it does not exist).

[zappaDPJ]

With regard to handing over details of users infringing copyright when downloading, a completely pointless exercise. Anyone who wants to get stuff can cover their tracks sufficiently well that they won't be caught (encrypted torrents, the tor network, direct IP rather than dns resolved addresses etc), meaning only the innocent have anything to fear.

In a recent judgement where the plaintiff was granted an order allowing the release of customer details, I believe the judge noted that copyright infringement listed against an IP did not automatically imply guilt. I think the current law is similar to the law pertaining to a speeding offence i.e. the offence cannot be listed against the vehicle owner unless the owner admits to the offence. Assuming that is correct it makes the law pretty useless unless the accused is prepared to admit to copyright infringement.

[Technical Ben]

Well, SME is Sony (Sony Music Entertainment) - so there's a start. If you are sure that they have no claim on the music then you should take it up directly with them (a quick Google shows that they have form in this area, claiming copyright where it does not exist).

I feel it's rather too much trouble to bother for one or two youtube videos. I was not given any contact details. So I have to search a phonebook/website for a contact I have no clue as to what office I really need to contact. For a few hours worth of searching to get 1 song/video allowed? As said, why should I have to deal with every mistaken claim (the youtube filter claims most classical tunes belong to SME, even though they are out of copyright). So I'll just use silent vids or my own webspace. Really, if it's that much trouble to use the service, I just won't use it.

[pctech]

Here's the phone number for you at least Ben http://www.sonymusic.com/page/contact-us

[Rik]

As said, why should I have to deal with every mistaken claim (the youtube filter claims most classical tunes belong to SME, even though they are out of copyright).

The scores may be, Ben, but the performances will have copyright attached.

[Technical Ben]

Hence why I made sure it was a midi sample or a personal performance recording (not the one SME recorded for the London Orchestra etc). Yet it was still flagged and barred. Like I said, I've wasted too much time over it as it is. Why should I call up some office, give out my personal info, over a mistaken sound recording?#

Or, why should I have all my videos taken down because the personal performer decided to retroactively sell all their music to SME after releasing it for others to use? It's not possible for the consumers to police companies back catalogues for them.

Even if it is a file that was mistakenly uploaded as "royalty/copyright free" why should I waste my time checking every single piece of media? Like I said, I'll just use other services.

[pctech]

Fair point Ben, just trying to help out.

[Technical Ben]

I know, sorry if I came across as not wanting help. It's just too much hassle for a piece of music I already spent a day or so looking for and checking to make sure did not belong to anyone or SME before I uploaded it. To have to do it again is not worth the time.

I just wonder what everyone will do when their DVD player or PC refuses to play their photo albums. As they are now adding DRM detection to dvd players (PS3 is the first I think) that refuse to play if they detect music or film on them. Even wedding videos would fail to play on the PS3 if there was music in the background!