Last Month Articles Index About 60-Seconds Submit an Article Contact Us About the Editor
Last Month Articles Index About 60-Seconds Submit an Article Contact Us About the Editor |
60-SecondsThis column has been a popular read in the pages of user group newsletters for more than a dozen years. For some background, read our 100th Issue.Top Stories* Spam Traps* Safe Computing * NO Dot-Docs * Get ripped off! * Your Press Release * The Kittridge Story 
|
#174.5 follow up to MGM vs. Grokster, October, 2005 Shortly after publishing 60-Second Window #174, "MGM vs. Grokster: what does it mean?" readers posted their comments, pro and con. I've chosen a select few to publish as follow-up because of the value of their views: Self-regulating ISPsS.H. writes: Although most of what is said in this article makes sense, speculating on how the Supreme Court might expand upon the MGM Studios v. Grokster decision is pointless. I agree with the second paragraph that the decision was bad, but not for ISPs, more for software developers. To quote the article, "The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling against Grokster could shift responsiblity for illegal file sharing to ISPs," but it may not. ISPs are already responsible to ensure their networks are not conduits for illegal file sharing. Here at the University where I work, we receive notices from the recording industry a few times per year about copyright infringement via our network. This is because many students have high speed Internet access in their dorm rooms. Every copyright infringement notice we receive is taken very seriously and acted upon quickly. How would this be any different in the future if Fred Showker's concern about the Supreme Court is realized? In my opinion, ISPs should take reasonable steps to at least make it difficult for their users to violate copyrights via their network. Although the Grokster decision was yet another pro-business, anti-consumer case, I just don't see this as a major concern for ISPs, in terms of them being vulnerable to legal action. Any responsible ISP should be actively dealing with the issue of illegal online file sharing, not so much because some file sharing is illegal, but because it also tends to open up security holes and more importantly, can consume a huge amount of network bandwidth if left uncontrolled. What is difficult is distinguishing between legal file sharing (such as what I do with the photos I shoot), and illegal file sharing, but that's part of what we pay our ISPs to do for us. Effective network management is a very important motivator on why any ISP has to monitor file sharing and other network activity, even if the threat of legal action never materializes. Fred comments: This reader reinforces the assertion that the ISP should be aware of and attentive to any criminal activities on their servers. However, should is a misleading term -- we all know of lots and lots of common practices that should or should not be allowed. The fact that they should doesn't necessarily mean they will or do. What prompted my investigation of applicability of the Grokster case to ISPs hosting criminals was the fact that there are a number of ISPs and Registrars who relentlessly register fraudulent domains, then host the web sites used in criminal activity. We've tracked a number of ISPs and their IP block holders who, week after week, continue perpetuate scamming and phishing web sites. Even after repeated notices and complaints, the sites come back again and again -- under new domains, but from the same IP blocks. In my opinion, those ISPs are clearly and blatantly guilty of aiding and abetting criminals. Obviously if the scam/crime was not successfully bringing revenue, identity theft, and other rewards, they would not continue the practice. While the actual criminal in those cases cannot be found, we know exactly who the ISP is. In all likelihood, the ISP knows who the criminal is. Therefore the ISP should indeed be brought in for secondary liability. There will be more comments posted shortly. Stay tuned. You can comment on this or provide a different slant to the story by sending an email. Thanks for reading...
|
