The entertainment industries claim that the threat of losing one’s Internet connection will deter a large group of copyright infringers. Thus far, however, no research has backed up this prediction. On the contrary, the results of a recent survey conducted by the British Internet provider BE Broadband reveals that the impact might be far less than expected.

BE Broadband surveyed a few hundred customers and asked them whether they are aware of the Digital Economy Act, and how they think their file-sharing habits would change under the new law. The results are intriguing.

Of all the respondents who use file-sharing networks (85% of the total sample) more than 94 percent say they will not share less when the Digital Economy Act gets into full swing. Instead, the majority of the file-sharers say they will simply take measures to hide their IP-address, by using VPN and proxy services for example.

Roughly 1 percent of the people who share files now say they will stop doing so and about 5 percent claim they will reduce their use of file-sharing software. Needless to say, the survey results suggest that three-strikes measures can hardly be called effective.

Taking into account that the survey may not be representative of the general population in the UK (judging from the high percentage of file-sharers), it does appear that many of the people who now use file-sharing networks won’t be deterred from doing so under the new law. Instead, many of them will simply take measures to ensure that they’re not caught.

This raises some serious concerns.

Although the entertainment industries may argue that even a few percent less copyright infringers is a victory, the question of costs remain. Implementing the three strikes procedures will cost ISPs millions of pounds a year, money that will be eventually clawed back from consumers.

In addition, the three strikes scheme puts tens of thousands of innocent Internet users at risk of being wrongfully accused and disconnected by mistake. This has been demonstrated several times in the ACS:Law debacle, and was even reported on in the British mainstream media.

Last but not least, even if the right person is targeted then there’s still the human rights issue. A UN report published last month labeled the three strikes provision in the Digital Economy Act a breach of human rights. Disconnecting users from the Internet is a disproportionate penalty, the report concluded.

Perhaps it’s time for the copyright lobby and legislators to look at the alternatives. Preferably measures that improve the legal offerings and take away the incentive for people to pirate, rather than radically enforcing copyright infringement without knowing that it will have any effect at all.

Source: ISP Survey: Three Strikes Won’t Deter Pirates

Across the pond in the United States, there is an Internet provider that has single-handedly implemented a similar scheme. Suddenlink, one of the top 10 cable companies in the country, disconnects subscribers for six months after they have received three DMCA notices. According to a company representative, Suddenlink is required to take this action under the DMCA.

TorrentFreak has been in contact with one of the customers who had his Internet connection disconnected for three alleged copyright violations. The affected subscriber provided detailed chatlogs with Suddenlink where the following explanation for the drastic measure is given.

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.

The explanation given above is pure nonsense of course. The DMCA does not and never has required ISPs to disconnect users. For some reason Suddenlink customer support was told to communicate this lie to its users. What is true, however, is that Suddenlink will disconnect subscribers after three alleged warnings.

TorrentFreak contacted the company and we were told that this measure is hidden in their Terms of Service. Although there is no word about a three-strikes policy, we did find the following sentence that could be used to justify the disconnections.

“If you continue to transfer Copyrighted Material illegally, you are violating Suddenlink’s policies and Suddenlink may take further action, including limiting your Internet download capacity, suspending or terminating your account, or a range of other measures.”

In reality, this means that subscribers will be disconnected from the Internet for 6 months without a refund. The subscriber we talked to was informed about the penalty over the phone and never received any documents to back it up.

Although Suddenlink’s three-strikes policy is the most extreme, the company is not the only US Internet provider that has implemented it. Cox is using a similar scheme, but with the major difference that the disconnection is limited to a few hours, not six months.

Disconnecting users based on claims of copyright holders and without any form of trial seems to be an extreme measure for a company that provides such an essential service as Internet access. Suddenlink told TorrentFreak that they are within their rights, just like Comcast said two years ago when they started blocking BitTorrent traffic.

Source: US ISP Disconnects Alleged Pirates for 6 Months

Thus far the United States Government has kept relatively quiet on this issue, but that doesn’t mean that such plans are not being discussed behind close doors.

According to Ari Emanuel, a famous Hollywood talent agent and the model for the character Ari Gold in the hit series Entourage, Hollywood lobbyists are working hard to convince President Obama and others to ram through similar legislation in the United States.

“We are in the midst of talking to the president and some attorney generals and [we are] trying to implement a three strikes and you’re out rule,” Emanuel said, while adding that this issue would most likely result in a “fight with ISPs”.

At this point it is impossible to assess the exact nature of these talks, but since Ari Emanuel is the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, there is no doubt that these talks are taken seriously. President Obama, who vouched to decrease the power of lobbyists in Washington, is not turning a deaf ear to this one for now.

Before even considering the implementation of a three-strikes model, United States lawmakers might want to take a good look at what’s happening in France. Unlike earlier projections that up to 95% of the file-sharers could stop downloading copyrighted content, the piracy rate has actually increased in the face of the new law.

The entertainment industry, nevertheless, continues to push legislation as the solution to online piracy, while ignoring their own role in the creation of the problem.

Source: President Obama Discusses Three Strikes Anti-Piracy Law

The media attention led to widespread protests. Most noticeable was ‘Operation Blackout’, where hundreds of thousands ‘blacked out’ their profile images on social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook, and not without success. The objections eventually caused the government to scrap the law and go back to the drawing board. Not for long though.

Fast forward a few months and the government already has a new and ‘improved’ version of the anti-piracy legislation ready. The new plan no longer includes the ‘guilty upon accusation” section where consumers had little options to appeal a potential disconnection. However, the new text also includes the option for copyright holders to demand $15,000 in damages from repeated copyright infringers.

“I want to stress that account holders will have the opportunity during each of these processes to defend claims by right holders,” Commerce Minister Simon Power said in a comment.

Under the new law, ISPs would no longer be obliged to simply disconnect every user accused of repeatedly downloading copyrighted material, without solid proof. Instead, all account holders can request a hearing at the Copyright Tribunal if they don’t agree with the proposed penalty or the evidence presented against them.

From current reports it is not clear how the copyright holders will collect evidence on alleged copyright infringers. The past has shown that their data gathering techniques are not always the most accurate, to say the least. If this is the case, we can expect to see many appeals once the new proposals become law in the coming year.

Source: Kiwi Government Reveals Revamped Anti-Piracy Law

The most recent intervention by the coalition of artists concerns the call by entertainment industry lobby groups for so called ‘three-strikes’ legislation, to disconnect repeat copyright infringers. Again, the copyright lobby has been acting on its own and without asking for input from the very artists they claim to represent.

“Not for the first time, we at the Featured Artist Coalition are forced to question whether the record industry is representing the best interests of artists in calling for such measures,” UK musician Billy Bragg writes in an article for the Guardian, dealing with the topic. According to Bragg the music industry is trying to blame ISPs for a ‘problem’ that is not as easily solved as it would first appear.

“Never mind that this is a shameful attempt to pass responsibility on to another sector of industry, the question remains whether or not such measures will have the desired effect. Technology has so far stayed ahead of enforcement. Any unauthorised filesharers who fear being caught out can simply encrypt their exchanges,” Bragg writes.

He further claims that it is sometimes hard for fans to find DRM-free music anywhere else than on file-sharing networks. The demands of music fans have changed with the emergence of the Internet, but the music industry has failed to offer decent alternatives thus far.

“The Featured Artist Coalition is opposed to copyright infringement, but we recognise that, if technology allows people to access music for free, they will take advantage. The next generation of music fans may no longer want to pay for music, but they are still hungry to hear it. The challenge to the industry is to find ways to monetise their behaviour.”

“Clearly, some form of P2P subscription service is the way forward, if only because it provides the most convenient way for consumers to access music,” Bragg argues.

Eventually the labels might have to give up the distribution component that has been at the core of their business for years on end. This paints an uncertain future for the labels and that might be one of the main reasons why they are so resistant. Or to put it in Bragg’s words;

“Yet for the major labels, the success of such an initiative would mean the end of their control over the distribution of music. Is this the real reason why they seem determined to do everything they can to clip the wings of the fledgling digital industry before it can fly?”

Source: Artists Don’t Want Pirate Fans to be Disconnected

In a vote earlier today, 407 Members of Parliament voted in favor of the amendment (138/46) while only 57 were opposed. After a bureaucratic pinball game with several votes on the same text, the amendment of the Telecoms package is now likely to be signed into law.

This is a strong message from Europe in favor of the individual rights of Internet users and against the widely opposed HADOPI law that French President Nicolas Sarkozy hopes to pass in the near future. In April it was mistakenly voted out by the French Parliament, but this is not likely to happen twice.

The entertainment industry, including Sarkozy’s wife, has has been lobbying for tougher anti-piracy legislation for years and despite the recently adopted amendment, France can not be forced to throw their “three-strikes” law overboard. Sarkozy himself put a lot of effort into ditching the amendment, as head of the European Council he already went against the democratic vote by rejecting it.

Nevertheless, the amendment was not adopted after a few months of delay. This is a step in the right direction, and it clearly goes against Sweden’s IPRED and France’s HADOPI laws. Let’s hope this will at least prevent other member states of the EU following the lead of these two countries.

Source: EU Rejects Three-Strikes Legislation, For Good

Luxembourg-based music platform and community Jamendo has well over half a million members, more than 100,000 album reviews and in excess of 17,000 albums on offer – all of them free to download. Jamendo lets artists keep 50% of the revenue generated and almost 100% of the donations received by the site go to the artists too.

In order to make a statement amidst escalating discussion on ’3 Strikes’ regimes, Jamendo has launched a scheme of its own. Called ’3 Thanks’, Jamendo has turned the music industry’s strategy on its head. From now on, Jamendo will send a ‘thank you’ email to anyone who downloads any of the tracks (currently around 200,000) from the site, while encouraging them to share with their friends.

Jamendo’s ’2nd Strike’ will be signaled by the most active downloaders receiving not a warning letter, but a ‘thank you’ note bundled with an “accomplice kit” containing stickers and other goodies.

In complete contrast to the plans of IFPI (which plans to disconnect people on their ’3rd Strike’), Jamendo will seek out their most active supporters who are able to convince a bar, restaurant, shop or hotel to sign up to the PRO service, and actually pay their ISP bill for the month.

TorrentFreak caught up with Jamendo creator Sylvain Zimmer who told us that he is delighted to be able to launch this initiative worldwide. Clearly Jamendo feel there are better methods of doing business than lobbying for punitive measures against consumers. But what should be done instead?

“We strongly think that the music economy is all about the relation between the artist and its fans : punishing them won’t do any good,” Sylvain told TorrentFreak.

“On Jamendo we try to make that relationship stronger, and we have seen over the years that it creates much more value, even for the artist though great feedback, donations, a large community/fanbase, loyalty and viral marketing. Our job is to make the artists understand that, and we have 10,000 of them on the platform now that do,” Sylvain added.

Sylvain told us that punishing downloaders will only alienate artists from their fanbase and make them less popular. “Maybe we have to help amplify that backslash, and make it the accepted standard to put your music online for free and monetize other revenue streams, such as concerts, music licensing, Jamendo PRO etc.”

Visitors to torrent sites will be aware that Jamendo artist torrents are appearing there more and more. We asked Sylvain if this is helping Jamendo to grow.

“Yes we have partnerships with Mininova, isoHunt and Vuze among others, and yes they did help us grow a bit,” he said. “I think what’s also important is the service for the artists, it is one of our advantages compared to competitors. We offer the artists that upload on Jamendo a very large reach, mainly via these partners.”

As torrent sites struggle to be accepted as a legitimate platform for media distribution, Sylvain feels that a relationship with Jamendo can be a reciprocal one.

“Through our partnerships, we also help them prove that their torrent websites can be used for legal content, so it’s win-win for everyone,” Sylvain told us.

All downloads on Jamendo are completely free for everyone, but users are encouraged to support any of the bands if they like what they hear. The Pro package on the other hand is interesting for owners of bars, restaurant and other public spaces. They avoid paying the traditional royalties and the money goes directly to the artists.

Source: File-Sharers Face ’3 Thanks’ for Excessive Downloading

The amendment, drafted by Guy Bono and other members of the European Parliament, was supposed to put a halt to the march of the anti-piracy lobby. However, despite the fact that is was adopted by an overwhelming majority, with 573 parliament members voting in favor with just 74 rejections, the European Council went against this democratic vote.

In September, Bono stated in a response to the vote: “You do not play with individual freedoms like that,” going on to say that the French government should review its three-strikes law. Sarkozy had other plans though, and in his position of President of the European Council, he convinced his friends this Thursday to reject the proposal.

The rejection also goes against conclusions from the EU culture ministers last week, who sided with the more balanced view of the European Commission, by encouraging copyright holders to work on offering “high quality, accessible, easy to use and consumer friendly” content online – instead of chasing pirates.

Guy Bono was appalled by the recent decision of the Council, which he referred to as “an arrangement between friends.” Not all is lost though, the amendment might pass in January or February 2009, when it will be proposed again. However, as Bono noted, this initial rejection is likely to result in a negative image of European democracy.

It seems that the lobbying efforts of the MPAA, RIAA and others have paid off, and for France and other European member states the road to a ‘three-strikes law’ for alleged pirates is now wide open again.

In France, Sarkozy will now go forward with implementing his controversial three-strikes law. We can only hope that other European countries wont follow this example. What a great demokarzy Europe has.

Source: Anti-Piracy Lobby Defeats European Democracy

However, it’s how they handle these requests that’s quite unique, and disturbing to say the least. Instead of sending their customer an email, notifying that they have received a DMCA takedown request on their behalf, Cox disables their Internet connection. Here is a quote from the warning page customers get to see when their Internet connection is cut off (screenshot below the article).

Under the DMCA, we have the responsibility to temporarily disable your Internet access, until such time as you take the necessary steps to remove the infringing files and to prevent further distribution of copyrighted material.

There are a couple of things wrong with this notification. First of all, and most importantly, the DMCA doesn’t oblige Cox to disable a customer’s Internet access at all. They have to notify their customer of the alleged infringement, but the measures they actually take are clearly out of proportion, and definitely not in the best interest of their customers.

Indeed, it has already led to a lot of frustration with Cox customers. One of them told TorrentFreak that he has been struggling for two days to regain his Internet access. The customer in question was instructed to call a phone number in order to resolve the issue, but it was impossible to get though for most of the day. When he finally got hold of someone via the regular customer service, he was simply told that he should call the same number he was given before.

After being on hold for more than an hour he eventually got through. The Cox customer told us what happened next: “He [Cox employee] said that he is going to allow me to have the Internet enabled for 1 hour while I ‘call my router company so they can walk me through securing my wireless network.’ If I don’t call back in the next hour, he will turn the Internet off again.”

First-time offenders will eventually get their Internet access reinstated, but not without being warned that they might lose it permanently if they receive two more takedown requests. “If it happens three times, I will be referred to their headquarters in Atlanta,” the Cox customer told us.

We contacted Cox’s customer support to verify this, and we were told that there is indeed a three strikes policy in place. When a Cox subscriber receives three takedown requests, their Internet access will be cut off entirely. Interestingly, this is the same policy that the European Parliament voted against last week, because it “restricts the rights and freedoms of Internet users.”

It turns out that Cox doesn’t need legislation to implement a three-strikes policy though. “Cox does in fact have a 3 strikes policy with regards to violations of our acceptable use policy for Internet service. If a customer’s service gets suspended 3 times for the same type of violation the customer risks having their Internet service terminated,” Cox’s customer support told TorrentFreak.

It is of course up to Cox how they handle alleged violations of their acceptable use policy. However, the problem lies in the fact that they act upon accusations made by the MPAA, RIAA and other anti-piracy organizations who employ evidence gathering methods that are shoddy, to say the least. In addition, there is still no law that requires a person to secure their wireless network and there are even routers that enable people to share their connection with outsiders.

We think that Cox clearly overstepped the mark here. Customers might not make as much noise as the lawyers of the entertainment industry, but eventually, they are the ones who bring in the money. Cox Communication currently uses the slogan “Your friend in the digital age.” Some friend…

Source: Cox Disconnects Alleged Pirates from the Internet

Both the MPAA and RIAA have pushed other countries to adopt similar legislation as well, but it will be hard for them to succeed in Europe. In April, the European Parliament spoke out against these anti-piracy measures, by saying it would be “conflicting with civil liberties and human rights and with the principles of proportionality, effectiveness and dissuasiveness”. Yesterday, this statement was backed up by an official vote.

The amendment, drafted by Guy Bono and other members of the European Parliament, was adopted by an overwhelming majority. 573 parliament members voted in favor while only 74 rejected. Satisfied with this outcome, Bono stated in a response to the vote: “You do not play with individual freedoms like that,” and said that the French government should review its three-strikes law.”

The vote was welcomed in other member states as well. Swedish EU parliamentarian Christofer Fjellner said in a comment: “What’s important about this decision is that now it’s clear that you can’t force [internet service] providers to ban people from the Internet without a legal process.”

It is scary to see how lobby groups are awarded powers that should only belong to law-enforcement agencies. Evidence should never be collectedly by parties who gather it in their own interests, and it is a relief to see that the European Parliament agrees on this.

Source: European Parliament Says No to Three-Strikes Law

Next month, France will be the chair of the European Union, and Christine Albanel, the French Minister of Culture said that they will take this opportunity to encourage member states to take on piracy as well. Albanel further said that the “three strikes” law aims to change the behavior of the “average downloader”, not the hardcore pirates.

Albanel does not mention that the French law goes directly against the European Parliament who, this April, condemned state plans to authorize the disconnection of suspected file-sharers from the Internet. The European Parliament said that disconnecting petty file-sharers would be “conflicting with civil liberties and human rights and with the principles of proportionality, effectiveness and dissuasiveness”.

However, recent developments indicate that anti-piracy outfits don’t need a law to threaten pirates. Since most countries are hesitant to adopt such laws, organizations like the BPI and BREIN are now looking to make deals with UK and Dutch ISPs, to establish a “three strikes” policy, without having to change the law.

The BPI already managed to convinced the British ISP BT to work with them. Earlier this week, the Register reported that a BT customer received an email, stating:

BPI will monitor for further infringements of copyright and, if further evidence is obtained of infringement via your internet connection, then further action is likely to be taken against you. That action may include litigation against you, as well as the suspension by BT of your internet connection.

A few days later, the Dutch anti-piracy outfit BREIN said they would like ISPs in The Netherlands to do the same – forward letters to alleged offenders, and threaten to terminate their Internet connection. In France, this is already happening as well, without the “three strikes” law being officially passed, with at least one ISP having agreed to work with an anti-piracy organization, to combat piracy.

So, while claiming they need such a law, they are working with ISPs to do the same thing anyway. This will be a huge problem, not just for the customers that may lose their connections, but just because people are being hit with, in many cases, baseless accusations. Until something is done to hold organizations accountable for false or inaccurate claims, the industry will continue to use shoddy data gathering techniques, pointing the finger at as many innocent net users as may be guilty.

This leads us to believe that the disconnection threats, are nothing more than an attempt to scare people, who often didn’t even commit the “crime”, as we pointed out before. Sad but true.

Source: 3-Strikes Law Not Needed to Disconnect Pirates