This could be the start of a major game changer for the Industry. IF ISPs are ruled to not be responsible, then people could sue the ISP and industry if their internet is disconnected for "downloading" since the ISP cannot be held liable... Maybe my thought is incomplete, but I think it's a start to a good win.
I think it's time for the movie and music industry inovate to compete with illegal downloads and stop crying at their mothers everytime someone downloads something on Torrent. Time to ditch Cd's, Dvd's and move to digital distribution...
As I work for an ISP, I feel I can comment. While we (so far) cannot be held liable for for the actions our customers take with the bandwidth we sell them, our Terms of Service clearly say they cannot use it for illegal activity. Violation of our ToS is grounds for termination of service.
So basically: We don't *have* to provide you service... but we do like taking your money so long as you're not breaking the law.
[citation][nom]Deotronic[/nom]@pooflinger1As I work for an ISP, I feel I can comment. While we (so far) cannot be held liable for for the actions our customers take with the bandwidth we sell them, our Terms of Service clearly say they cannot use it for illegal activity. Violation of our ToS is grounds for termination of service.So basically: We don't *have* to provide you service... but we do like taking your money so long as you're not breaking the law.[/citation]
And that gives me the question: what's the "legal right" / "legal wrong" ratio for customers? lol
My bet is that if ISPs actually start giving ToS's (terminations) when they had some way of knowing that accuratly, then they'd run out of business
My ISP would be glad for the verdict.
in the last hour alone, I have downloaded 12.345 25gb bluray movies,
76.543 albums - 10.000 of them was the same shitty album from U2 - just to annoy them,
99.999 porn clips,
123.456 ebooks - all about Martha Stewart,
33.333 programs - here 30.000 of them was from Adobe,
1 file without name or filetype, but I found it interesting that is was the only one without copyright warnings,
ISPs, generally, want to keep customers as long as they don't use "too much" bandwidth. (Thus, if a user were to only download illegal files totaling 1 GB a month, the ISP would be happier with them than if they had downloaded 2 GB of legal content.)
This is why ISPs want to switch to/begin using tiered data "usage" plans instead of "connection speed" plans.
The problem, of course, is that most large scale illegal (non-business) downloaders & uploaders use the most bandwidth. (Stereotype: Jane's 8 hours of internet browsing takes much less bandwidth than John's 8 hours of bit-torrenting.) Thus, the ISP investigates, finds John is using the most bandwidth, realizes it is possibly illegal, then finds a way to ditch him since he is a "bad customer" when based upon their business model.
Jane's usage, even if all 8 hours of that is playing flash games, won't be anywhere close to John's usage.
Interesting that they sued an Australian ISP. I'm just wondering if this is actually setting a precedent or not, or whether this would have gone the same way in an American court. Another question is that since ISPs aren't technically liable, are they then going to be expected to monitor what is downloaded and report illegal use to the authorities? Being from Canada for the most part, from my understanding is that downloading itself is fine, but uploading copyrighted material is where you can get into trouble.