
The Music Industry Shouldn't Be Able to Cut Off Your Internet Access - z0a
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/12/music-industry-shouldnt-be-able-cut-your-internet-access
======
mortenjorck
I thought this "cut off your internet" thing had died circa 2007 with the
draconian, yet endearingly-condescending "three-strikes-you're-out" push from
the record industry. In a world where internet access has long since become a
basic requirement to function in civil society, how is this still a
conversation?

~~~
wmf
You can just switch to another ISP!

~~~
ahoy
I literally can't switch. I live in one of the biggest cities in the world,
and the ISP's here have carved it up into neighborhood level monopolies. I
have one option.

~~~
bb101
I much prefer the UK model. BT Openreach wire up the infrastructure and take
care of the telephone exchanges, and then ISPs compete to provide their
services on the lines. To be fair, they have been slow rolling out fibre into
rural areas, but most exchanges now have a choice of 10+ ISPs for prices
equivalent to $25 a month.

Why aren't you all protesting about being tied into such oligopolies? America
is supposed to be about free markets and open choice.

~~~
paulddraper
> Why aren't you all protesting about being tied into such oligopolies?

To be fair, you've just replaced a oligopoly with a monopoly.

Openreach is a government-controlled monopoly, but US telecom is heavily
regulated too. Both charge what the government lets them.

As you point out, rural support is a lot less if no one can recoupe
infrastructure expenses. The UK has 5x the population density of the US.

So...you might be right, but it's not a clear-cut answer from basic
principles.

~~~
jdietrich
Communications infrastructure naturally tends towards a monopoly - it makes
very little sense for thirty different companies to run wires to your house,
on the off chance that you'll choose them over a competitor.

The advantage of the Openreach model is that the last-mile infrastructure is
treated like a public good. Anyone can lease bits of that infrastructure and
everyone pays the same regulated rates. The system ensures that the monopoly
is as small as possible, segregating out the stuff that's a natural monopoly
from the stuff that naturally supports competition.

Thanks to Openreach, I have a meaningful choice over my internet service. I
can choose dirt cheap service from a multinational, or I can pay a premium for
specialist service. If my ISP starts doing traffic shaping or has lousy
customer support, I can choose from any number of other ISPs.

~~~
paulddraper
> Communications infrastructure naturally tends towards a monopoly

Agreed, but suggesting "America is supposed to be about free markets"
therefore it should have a monopoly isn't a compelling argument.

It should be a monopoly despite the normal free market model, not because of
it.

------
xupybd
Yet in New Zealand they can :(

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_(Infringing_File_Sha...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_\(Infringing_File_Sharing\)_Amendment_Act_2011)

~~~
Nition
This law is sort of interesting. I don't think anyone came out particularly
happy with it.

If I remember correctly it was sort of pushed upon us by US pressure so the
legislators didn't really like it, it added extra work so the ISPs didn't like
it, as a result of that the law has a $25 fee for administering a "strike" to
someone, which the copyright holders don't like because they can't so blindly
send out mass strikes. The strikes also expire after 9 months. And obviously
the people don't like it either.

The maximum fine is capped at $15,000NZD (~$11,000USD) and the average fine in
practice has apparently been around $500NZD (~$350USD). As of 22 November 2013
17 people had got their three strikes and received their fines[1]. I wonder
what the total is now.

Re actually cutting off your Internet access though, I'm not sure. Thing is,
that was temporarily in there and was later removed, as Section 92A in the
Copyright Act. You can see it marked as [ _Repealed_ ][2]. But then section
122B seems to say your Internet can still get cut off. Maybe someone can shed
some light on that one.

[1] [https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/lawtalk/lawtalk-
archives/issue...](https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/lawtalk/lawtalk-
archives/issue-832/infringing-file-sharing-two-years-on)

[2]
[http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1994/0143/latest/D...](http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1994/0143/latest/DLM345634.html)

~~~
xupybd
It would seem that the ISPs had a significant compliance cost as well.

"On 23 July 2012, despite the policy intent of making the issuance of
copyright infringement notices under the legislation inexpensive, Telecom New
Zealand revealed that under the new regime, it had cost them $534,416 to issue
only 1,238 notices - or approximately $438 per notice, although this cost
figure is not evidenced by any audited breakdown. The copyright holders are
required to pay a fee of $25 to have the notices issued"[1]

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_(Infringing_File_Sha...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_\(Infringing_File_Sharing\)_Amendment_Act_2011#Criticism)

~~~
Nition
I feel like Telecom may have been boosting the numbers a bit there to try and
make the law seem extra bad for them; all they should really have to do is
forward a letter.

~~~
MichaelGG
If they didn't already have a database in place of which IPs assigned to which
customers during which times, they'd need to set that up. Software dev isn't
cheap. Maintenance isn't cheap. They need to write up a procedure on how to
handle these notices. They have to verify they're valid (i.e. not just a prank
or malicious action).

Compliance costs can add up.

~~~
xupybd
Also never underestimate the costs incurred by sufficiently bloated
bureaucracy.

~~~
lostlogin
You've worked for a university too?

------
pixelbill
This happened to myself and my housemate recently, this draconian practice is
still alive and well in the USA. We have Service Electric, who uses
PenTeleData as their provider, and I can honestly say they are the worst
service imaginable.. I'd rather have Comcast.

Neither of us use torrents, we prefer streaming services that have everything
we need. Regardless, our internet was turned off without notice two months
ago. The most frustrating part was that they didn't tell us, it just went
off.. so it took us nearly a day to figure out what was even going on. This
included a dozen calls to the ISP trying to figure out what was going on, and
the surprising part is that they didn't know! There's more to the story
including absolutely most incompetent tech support I've ever seen, but a
little over a day later we had it turned back on. We asked what we could do to
avoid this in the future, and were told not to torrent.

Fast forward to a few weeks back, our internet turns off again. I call and
find out that our internet has been cut off for 72 hours due to torrenting,
which turned out to be a TV show. A TV show neither of us watches, so the
circumstances are suspect.

When I questioned the operator about this, she flat out called me a liar, with
no evidence to support her argument. When I suggested that we might cancel our
service because of the poor treatment, she said go ahead. Of course, she knew
that there are no other ISPs where we live (out in the woods).

So here we are again, our internet may get turned off permanently and without
warning for no wrongdoing on our part. Rather strange times we're living in
where scumbag companies can get away with this, ruining peoples lives so they
can increase their own profits by 3.2%

Burn in hell, PenTeleData, I'm sure you're monitoring this as well.

~~~
pixelbill
Oh I'd forgot to mention that were were charged a $10 re-connection fee each
time, in addition to being charged for the days when service was not
available.

Basically any time they want they can take extra money from you and you have
no recourse.

------
yuhong
I wonder how Hollywood was taken over by lawyers in the first place. The
plaintiffs in the Betamax suit are Disney and Universal.

~~~
tedunangst
Actors and directors used to be owned by the studios. Contract lawyers are not
a new thing.

~~~
yuhong
I know that these lawyers has always existed.

------
Pica_soO
Some routertrojan, erecting a local, for mortals invisible, town-wide tor-net
should be enough to end this madness.

------
nabanics
As long as you don't use your internet access to commit illegal actions, they
won't cut anything off.

~~~
virmundi
Um...no. If RIAA thinks you did something wrong, even with flimsy evidence,
they can still come after you. Should be easier to convince Comcrap to shut
off your Internet than get a judge to agree.

[http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/117419/judge-r...](http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/117419/judge-
rules-that-riaa-had-right-to-sue-woman-wrong.html)

