Malibu Media Continues To Seek Six Strikes Data From Broadband Providers To Use Against People It Sues
from the troll-troll-trolling dept
Ever since the infamous “six strikes” Copyright Alert System (CAS) was “voluntarily” agreed to (under threat that Congress would enact legislation) between some big ISPs and the MPAA/RIAA, people have pointed out that it was only a foot in the door, which would then likely be used in lawsuits either against the individuals or against ISPs. A year ago, we noted that prolific copyright troll Malibu Media had subpoenaed Verizon to try to get the six strikes data on someone it was suing, and now the company has done the same thing again with Comcast. While Malibu Media eventually dropped the request for info from Verizon, it seems likely that this type of request will become more common.
And it’s yet another reason why the whole six strikes/CAS program is so troubling. It involves a list of accusations, not convictions, of copyright violations, where the person being accused has no real recourse (there is a limited right to appeal, which costs money and does not even allow you to make use of basic defenses, such as noting that a work is in the public domain). While defenders of the program didn’t seem to think there was anything wrong with this sort of “guilty until proven innocent with limited defenses” setup, in part because it wasn’t a court case, the fact that this data may now be used in court cases should be insulting to basic concepts of due process.
Filed Under: cas, copyright, copyright alert system, data, lawsuits, six strikes
Companies: comcast, malibu media
Comments on “Malibu Media Continues To Seek Six Strikes Data From Broadband Providers To Use Against People It Sues”
Had someone I talked to on another site couldn’t see what the problem was with 6 strikes. He claimed you could just wait until they finished their 6 strikes and go on about your business. At the time I told him there would be a record kept somewhere but could provide no reason why this might be important.
Now that the other shoe has fallen, it provides another glimpse at why this isn’t such a good idea. Of course once the NSA’s crap came out on top of the six strikes I went to obtain a VPN. More because where I surf is no ones business but mine. I have no desire to do terrorism but again no desire to be terrorized either.
Possible way to fight back?
If you can’t use basic defenses (like public domain), I wonder if someone could fight back by suing Malibu Media or whoever for defamation/libel? They are accusing you of a crime despite proof that you committed no crime, and doing it in public documents.
Re: Possible way to fight back?
Huh? The point is that the strikes info was insufficient to finger a specific individual. Not that it absolves a specific individual. It specifically does NOT do that.
Re: Re: Possible way to fight back?
6 Strikes is an abomination of the law.
TOS & AUP for the ISPs were altered to void a very important portion of the legal framework that Malibu also wishes to avoid.
An IP address alone can not tell you who did it.
The policies were altered to make the account holder responsible for everything that happens on their connection.
So the 6 Strikes notice goes to the name on the account, much like a Malibu complaint. It splits from there as 6 Strikes no longer needs to meet the burden of who did it.
Malibu is attempting to bring in “evidence” that upon examination shows nothing.
An account generated an alert, allegedly.
An alert was sent out.
As it costs $35 to attempt to “prove” your evidence to an arbitrator, most people skip that. You are limited to a very short, very specific list of answers (originally it was planned there would be a 1 time pass for someone did it without me knowing but after 1 use you lost that defense forever.).
Any attempt to use these notices in a courtroom will most likely result in CCI having to appear to defend the system, and very possibly having to submit their system to actual independent review.
This is another attempt at Exhibit C, where MM rattles off this long list of other copyrighted material they claim was also downloaded on the same IP address. It is slightly classier because unless something has changed, porn studios were NOT welcome to sign up to send alerts. If the work of DtecNet in other areas is any guideline the data used to create the alerts has flaws, and CCI would not like people asking questions about that.
This is a firm, IMHO, who is grabbing onto anything they can hold up to shore up their claims. They can not get over the hurdle of not being able to show the name on the account did anything, and these cases are a fishing expedition for cash not the infringer.
Let them take it into court.
Use it to expose a pattern of claims being made with no factual basis to support them. It’s MM’s business model without the shady payment agreements and the constantly changing names.
Allegations are made.
Followed by threats when the account holder is identified
it doesn’t matter what your answer is they pursue the allegation as if it was factual.
If you wish to challenge the claim it costs you money.
If you ask questions about how the secret sauce works, they hide the magic box from view.
The system has had no independent review.
Mike Masnick just hates it when copyright law is enforced.
Re: Re:
And AC continues to mistakenly believe(at best), that ‘copyright trolling’ has anything to do with ‘copyright enforcement’.
Just a tip, but when the ones ‘enforcing copyright’ will, the vast majority of the time, drop the case rather than take it to court where their claims can be examined and challenged, odds are good they have no interest in true ‘copyright enforcement’.
Re: Re: Re:
Or simply the case is that a good fraction of copyright enforcement relies on what amounts to trolling, and it’s going to cut into the meal ticket of the RIAA.
He simply can’t stand it when due process is enforced.
Re: Re:
This isn’t copyright law.
Re: Re:
This isn’t enforcement. Would you like to know how I can tell?
Because literally nothing is actually being enforced, and nothing will be by Malibu Media.
Malibu will always try to find a red herring to use in a case. The have show this before with their use of titles included in their lawsuit that they didn’t even own nor have copyright on.
The inclusion of those titles they had no copyright on and did not own was for shock and awe effect. The mere fact they are trying to include one of the ISP’s six strikes notice is for the shock and awe value.
The six strike policy is flawed, just because your ISP sends you a notice is not proof you downloaded a torrent file. Someone could have easily used your internet connection to download a torrent with out your knowledge.
Home users have a tendency to use easy passwords or not to have an secured connection to their Wi-Fi.
I had my ISP send me a notice saying we were using a ton of bandwidth, when I spoke with them about it I asked them how much bandwidth I had used, they couldn’t even give me an amount, nor could they send me anything showing the usage or what period the excessive usage took place.
We have two teenagers who do a ton of online gaming but they don’t have any torrent clients on their computers or movies they downloaded, but they do a ton of online gaming.
Just because you use a fair amount of bandwidth doesn’t mean you downloaded a torrent file, and just because your ISP sends you a notice doesn’t mean you are guilty in a six strikes notice.
Re: Re:
Even if you have a strong password on your Wi-Fi, it does not mean anything if your access point is vulnerable to Reaver or Heartbleed.
Even Youtube can be enough to use a lot of bandwidth.