As a discussion on the ISP-DSL list heats up, one person says, "Maybe when I get a speeding ticket on the way home from work tonight, I can tell the cop to send it to Ford since they didn't block my SUV from going over 65 MPH!"

[August 10, 2001]

On the ISP-DSL list in July, JA queried,

"What's your stance on an ISP's responsibilities regarding file sharing? Personally, I feel we have a need to protect copyright holders, but we must protect our customers above all else. Under the current laws, the only obligation we have is to tell the user to remove the offending file. What do you think?"

A number of respondents argued that it's best to just stay out of the whole policing arena:

[RD advised] "ISPs should consider the user first and foremost, for several reasons. Taking on responsibility for subscriber conduct puts the ISP in the position of Internet Cop. The law does not unequivocally make ISPs liable for the deliberate acts of others, but if ISPs adopt the behavior of Internet Cop, then that's the expectation lawmakers will have when considering how to balance the interests of Internet users against those of individuals raising copyright infringement claims. One should conceive of a strategy that addresses the bigger question: should ISPs be held liable for the online conduct of others?"

[BE agreed] "My big worry would be that if this becomes widespread practice, it just means people and courts will expect ISPs to play a role in all law enforcement. That is one slippery slope I don't want to start down. Personally, if I'm paying for an Internet feed, I'm paying for an Internet feed. If you start telling me what I can do with what I've paid for, I will take my business elsewhere. ISPs are common carriers, just like a phone company. Any other stance is insane."

[VB added] "The reason for not trying to play traffic cop is that most of the legal protections ISPs have come from being content neutral. When you start trying to control some content, you become responsible for all content."

DH contended it's important to do whatever you can to block illegal activity:

"Why would anyone condone illegal activity on your networks if you knew it was happening? There are privacy concerns here, but come on: an ISP does not equal a doctor or a lawyer in patient or client privilege. Why not filter UDP or TCP port utilization? I know this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but what percentage of Aimster or Gnutella activity is legal person-to-person non-copyrighted activity? Not much. There is a lot of gear out there that can block specific UDP and TCP ports with simple ACLs."

SY suggested it's a question of pinning down where the responsibility lies:

"Maybe when I get a speeding ticket on the way home from work tonight, I can tell the cop to send it to Ford since they didn't block my SUV from going over 65 MPH!"

Others countered that it's simply a matter of supporting the law:

[DH argued] "The difference is that the act of driver fasting than the speed limit harms primarily the driver, not the person who built the car. The act of trading files, videos, and songs that are copyrighted harms numerous people that contributed into the development of those items. Don't let yourself fall into the notion of entitlement where everyone expects to get something for nothing. Even if you aren't, condoning the activity by looking the way supports its use against you."

[BS agreed] "What bothers me is that for some reason the vast majority of people seem to have no inclination whatsoever to honor any intellectual property. That scares me."

RK noted that it's difficult, not to mention expensive, to set up that kind of policing:

"ACL filtering won't help; all file sharing software supports any port the user sets it to. So, if you block the high ports, then the clients just set it to a common port, and your ACLs don't help there. Regardless, ISPs are not to blame for the nature of the Internet; the Internet can not be policed. If the MPAA wants to filter this stuff out, they should pay providers, and have their team set up roadblocks for the illegal traffic. The laws of the U.S. can't apply over the Internet, since the Internet is a global phenomenon. The MPAA wants to take on the world? Let them."

— End

 

Related articles:
	[Jul. 17, 2001]	The Secret To Online Privacy
	[Feb. 16, 2001]	Carnivore Tagged with New Alias
	[Jun. 23, 1999]	Are ISPs Content Police or Innocent Bystanders in Libel Cases?