Updated with Verizon comments at bottom. Like most every ISP, Verizon forwarded copyright notices to customers who are tagged by the entertainment industry's intelligence-gathering organizations as having uploaded copyrighted files. However, they haven't disclosed the customer who was actually using the IP address at the time the infringement occurred, and Verizon in fact has a long history of being one of only a few ISPs that has fought the RIAA vehemently in in the courts (and won).
But something started changing last year, when Verizon said they were cooperating with both the RIAA and MPAA on a new letter writing campaign that would target P2P users. At the time it wasn't clear what was going to be different, given that Verizon had been forwarding DMCA warnings for years -- and customers had been ignoring them with no repercussions for just as long. CNET now claims that Verizon has started kicking users off of the network who repeatedly engage in copyright infringement (at least according to the entertainment industry):
quote:Months after Verizon Communications began issuing warnings to accused file sharers, the company has acknowledged that multiple offenses could result in a service interruption. "We've cut some people off," Verizon Online spokeswoman Bobbi Henson told CNET. "We do reserve the right to discontinue service. But we don't throttle bandwidth like Comcast was doing."
But is Henson talking about simply kicking excessive users off the network (quite common) or kicking DMCA violators off the network? We're checking to see if she misspoke. Such "graduated response" practices aren't new, but they are rare. To our knowledge, among the major ISPs only Cox Communications will actually boot you from the network for repeat DMCA warnings, but the company told us they give the user every opportunity to scale back. Verizon similarly tells CNET that the number of users they actually kick off the network is "small," but that they're seeing a lot of users stop P2P use after getting a single warning.
We do reserve the right to discontinue service. But we don't throttle bandwidth like Comcast was doing.
-Verizon
The problem, as we've often discussed, is that there's no real course of action for customers who are falsely targeted by the entertainment industry's accusation mechanism, which has neither a good record for accuracy, nor any independent oversight of the accusation process. If Verizon's terminating the broadband service of paying customers with little evidence outside of a wink and an IP address, it will raise all kinds of legal questions moving forward.
There is irony here, given Verizon used to be such a stalwart protector of P2P user privacy. While analysts, ISPs and executives deny or ignore it -- ISPs built their broadband empires on the shoulders of piracy and the allure of free content (remember a little thing called Napster?). Now that there's very few dial-up users to convert, and carriers are busy trying to become content giants, piracy has lost its usefulness and ISPs may be more interested in protecting copyrights.
Or has it? Verizon closing the door on P2P users would mean that other ISPs can quietly gain a marketing edge and lure P2P users by not participating in the MPAA and RIAA's graduated response push. Independent ISPs may be given an opportunity to lure users in by assuring them the ISP is not interested in being a content nanny. You also have to wonder if the decision would reduce adoption of the carrier's faster and pricier tiers, which, if we're honest, are most useful to those engaging in large P2P transfers.
Of course Verizon's lawyers likely weighed all the risks. If they're moving toward graduated response, they must figure that with the company building a TV and content empire, that all the potential pitfalls were worth cozying up to the entertainment industry and protecting copyrights. Of course the move won't stop piracy. Users can still utilize proxy services to mask their IP address, or simply flock to other alternatives that aren't tracked by the entertainment industry, like UseNet or direct HTTP download links.
Meanwhile, we're interested in hearing from any Verizon user that actually has pushed this process to the point where Verizon wants to disconnect them.
Update: In conversations Broadband Reports has subsequently had with Verizon's Bobbi Henson, she seems to be debating the position that she appeared to take in the CNET piece:
quote: I'm not aware that we've ever terminated anyone's account for excessive consumption, although we reserve the right to do so. Verizon has no bandwidth caps. That part of the CNET story is wrong. I did not say "we've cut people off." I said we reserve the right to do so.
We're still pushing to see whether the carrier actually has cut anyone off for DMCA violations, or if they're simply inferring that they will to reduce network strain and get the RIAA/MPAA off of their back.Update 2: Ok, we're still working for you to get at the truth. We asked Verizon whether anybody had actually been terminated from Verizon's network and got this response. It takes a paragraph, but Verizon informs us that the answer to that question is NO.:
quote:We have had a copyright notice and education program in place for some time now and communicated it to our customers and the public on our Web site back in April 2009. This is not an automatic “three strikes” graduated response program. This program has been effective in reducing instances of repeat notices and has not resulted in the termination of any Verizon customer’s service. The intent of the program is to educate customers and give them every opportunity to take action to address notices from content owners that their Internet connection may have been used to download or share content in violation of copyright laws. Our goal is to protect our customers’ privacy and due process rights while recognizing the importance of copyright protection and acquiring content legally. We believe our program strikes a reasonable approach and is working very well.
So freedom is not paying for stuff you should? Please go to work and tell your boss you will now work for free so their customers can get free shit. Of course I am assuming you actually have a job.
the civil war was over in 1865, black people have been free since to do as they please. no one forced them to lay fiber in the ground let alone build this country from what it was almost 150 years ago. so that really is kinda a moot point in this conversation
the civil war was over in 1865, black people have been free since to do as they please. no one forced them to lay fiber in the ground let alone build this country from what it was almost 150 years ago. so that really is kinda a moot point in this conversation
Slavery really didn't end until 1964 with the civil rights bill.
the civil war was over in 1865, black people have been free since to do as they please. no one forced them to lay fiber in the ground let alone build this country from what it was almost 150 years ago. so that really is kinda a moot point in this conversation
Slavery really didn't end until 1964 with the civil rights bill.
oh i wasn't aware we forced african americans to work for us for free. i believe if i remember my middle school history correctly slavery was abolished in 1865, granted they may have not had the same rights.. but i'm pretty sure they were not forced to work. i'm also fairly sure if they weren't satisfied with what they were doing or where they were they were free to relocate somewhere else...
· 2010-Jan-23 10:58 am: ·
KrK Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium Member join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK
So freedom is not paying for stuff you should? Please go to work and tell your boss you will now work for free so their customers can get free shit. Of course I am assuming you actually have a job.
That is true but has anyone gotten a DMCA warning for legal P2P? I'm sure a few people have gotten them mistakenly, but by far the majority of warning letters have been for illegally distributing copyrighted material.
· 2010-Jan-20 7:12 pm: ·
88615298 Premium Member join:2004-07-28 West Tenness
So freedom is not paying for stuff you should? Please go to work and tell your boss you will now work for free so their customers can get free shit. Of course I am assuming you actually have a job.
P2P != piracy.
Did I say that? No. But downloading a torrent of movie is. Yes yes no one ever pirates movies, music and TV shows. All people do on p2p is download ISOs of Linux.
· 2010-Jan-20 7:20 pm: ·
Gbcue Premium Member join:2001-09-30 Santa Rosa, CA kudos:8
Did I say that? No. But downloading a torrent of movie is. Yes yes no one ever pirates movies, music and TV shows. All people do on p2p is download ISOs of Linux.
Downloading a .torrent file is not illegal.
· 2010-Jan-20 8:04 pm: ·
Metatron2008 Premium Member join:2008-09-02 united state
Did I say that? No. But downloading a torrent of movie is. Yes yes no one ever pirates movies, music and TV shows. All people do on p2p is download ISOs of Linux.
Did I say that? No. But downloading a torrent of movie is. Yes yes no one ever pirates movies, music and TV shows. All people do on p2p is download ISOs of Linux.
Downloading a .torrent file is not illegal.
Reading a book on how to rob a bank isn't illegal either.
Did I say that? No. But downloading a torrent of movie is. Yes yes no one ever pirates movies, music and TV shows. All people do on p2p is download ISOs of Linux.
Downloading a .torrent file is not illegal.
Reading a book on how to rob a bank isn't illegal either.
Nope. It's paying for stuff and then actually having a say in how you use it. It's like trying to bring balance back between corporate and consumer interests, instead of having it tilted all the way over to their end.
· 2010-Jan-20 8:52 pm: ·
Metatron2008 Premium Member join:2008-09-02 united state
Nope. It's paying for stuff and then actually having a say in how you use it. It's like trying to bring balance back between corporate and consumer interests, instead of having it tilted all the way over to their end.
I'd wager that a majority of the people who are talking about freedom, P2P and peerguardian, didn't buy anything they are talking about.
So freedom is not paying for stuff you should? Please go to work and tell your boss you will now work for free so their customers can get free shit. Of course I am assuming you actually have a job.
Actually yea I do have a job, that is legal as well, and I'm self employed, no boss here. Oh yea, I'm also a programmer. What are you trying to proof? Im downloading a 4.3 GB file through usenet's 256bit encryption and there aint shit nobody can do about it because it's my right. What you people don't get is that you cant stop evolution, you can only slow it down, obviously your brainwashed into thinking sharing virtual information that has no phsyical value is illegal, you probably also support the DEA and the war on drugs aswell dont you.
I can't wait for all the old people and there old views to just die out.
· 2010-Jan-21 1:49 am: ·
Metatron2008 Premium Member join:2008-09-02 united state
So freedom is not paying for stuff you should? Please go to work and tell your boss you will now work for free so their customers can get free shit. Of course I am assuming you actually have a job.
Actually yea I do have a job, that is legal as well, and I'm self employed, no boss here. Oh yea, I'm also a programmer. What are you trying to proof? Im downloading a 4.3 GB file through usenet's 256bit encryption and there aint shit nobody can do about it because it's my right. What you people don't get is that you cant stop evolution, you can only slow it down, obviously your brainwashed into thinking sharing virtual information that has no phsyical value is illegal, you probably also support the DEA and the war on drugs aswell dont you.
I can't wait for all the old people and there old views to just die out.
Bullshit. And if by some chance all of that is correct, then I assume you don't mind if other people steal your work and never pay for it, putting you on the street?
You are either lying or a fool who doesn't understand how life works.
Anybody who is self employed and has even AN IDEA of how bills work wouldn't be messing around with putting bread on the table. Esp. not in this economy.
Btw, it's 'prove', not proof. Not to mention the countless other spelling errors. What software do you make by chance? Hacks modifications for games, Stuff on /b/ in your parents basement? Because a person with your ability to type wouldn't be able to sell anything reasonable.
Bullshit. And if by some chance all of that is correct, then I assume you don't mind if other people steal your work and never pay for it, putting you on the street?
You are either lying or a fool who doesn't understand how life works.
Anybody who is self employed and has even AN IDEA of how bills work wouldn't be messing around with putting bread on the table. Esp. not in this economy.
Btw, it's 'prove', not proof. Not to mention the countless other spelling errors. What software do you make by chance? Hacks modifications for games, Stuff on /b/ in your parents basement? Because a person with your ability to type wouldn't be able to sell anything reasonable.
So Johnny Depp, Brad Pitt, and Tom Cruise have been thrown out on the street? Why didn't someone tell me such horrible atrocity was going on. KILL THE INTERNET NOW!
Let's face it this is about huge corporations trying to protect an ever GROWING empire. This has nothing to do with people being thrown out onto the street because they can't get paid. Sensationalism to the extreme on the part of the MPAA, RIAA, and all who sympathise with them.
· 2010-Feb-20 10:57 pm: ·
Metatron2008 Premium Member join:2008-09-02 united state
Bullshit. And if by some chance all of that is correct, then I assume you don't mind if other people steal your work and never pay for it, putting you on the street?
You are either lying or a fool who doesn't understand how life works.
Anybody who is self employed and has even AN IDEA of how bills work wouldn't be messing around with putting bread on the table. Esp. not in this economy.
Btw, it's 'prove', not proof. Not to mention the countless other spelling errors. What software do you make by chance? Hacks modifications for games, Stuff on /b/ in your parents basement? Because a person with your ability to type wouldn't be able to sell anything reasonable.
So Johnny Depp, Brad Pitt, and Tom Cruise have been thrown out on the street? Why didn't someone tell me such horrible atrocity was going on. KILL THE INTERNET NOW!
Let's face it this is about huge corporations trying to protect an ever GROWING empire. This has nothing to do with people being thrown out onto the street because they can't get paid. Sensationalism to the extreme on the part of the MPAA, RIAA, and all who sympathise with them.
For every major star, their are hundreds, thousands even, of people who take regular jobs to write, create and maintain their work. The only one making sensations about this is a person who looks at the top 1% and ignores the rest of the people; you.
Let's also not forget boys and girls that corporations have broke the public trust by extending these copyrights to ridiculous lengths of time to "protect their revenue stream". Please educate yourselves before you start spouting inaccurate information. P2P can be used for many legal purposes, and if you think someone is automatically guilty before they are charged in front of a jury of their peers you didn't read the constitution very carefully.
Freedom is the right to defend yourself, including the right to a trial (in most instances) if you are accused of breaking the law.
Yes, Verizon is a private company, and yes, they can cut you off for practically any reason (the TOS you agreed to says so). Verizon is acting fully within the law.
However, there's something profoundly un-free about the fact that powerful media organizations with no oversight (the RIAA and MPAA, among others) now apparently have the ability to get your Internet service cut off.
It's one thing to sue people who are pirating movies or music. It may not be the best PR or business move, and I don't agree with the exorbitant damages, but it least it gives the accused a chance to defend themselves.
The "new" process, where your ISP cuts you off, doesn't give you the chance to invoke discovery to research the process used to evidence against you, it doesn't give you the chance to call expert witnesses that might be able to exonerate you, and it doesn't give you the chance to have your case heard by a jury of your peers.
Verizon basically is saying that they can be judge, jury, and executioner. Legally, they are well within their rights.
Does it infringe on your freedom? Absolutely. It infringes on your right to due process.
I will say that people who infer that protecting their personal P2P use is the Internet equivalent of protecting Bolivia from fascism aren't really doing copyright reform any favors.
I'll also say though that people who boil down the entire P2P crowd's arguments as "we like free stuff" haven't got much of a clue of what the debate is really about either.
"they built their broadband empires on the shoulders of piracy and the promise of free content."
For some I guess but not the majority of users.
And regarding why Verizon is doing this now, it is called Fios TV services. They have a dog in the fight for video dollars now and free video cuts into that.
I'm a bit confused by the post title... "kicking P2P Users off their network" is a bit different than "kicking accused pirates off their network", as the former seems to imply that Verizon is now outright objecting to P2P, while the latter seems to be more what the article is saying?
well just think about it if customers gets kicked off its not like customers cant find other ISP's to go with. I mean this is great way losing customers over this and I also think its stupid for verizon to do this. Who cares of people are downloading it I mean they are still going to download files by different ways of getting it. There is new software that allow customers download files that ISP's cant filter out or find out any information.
I would venture a Guess that all you have to do is wait a few days then call in to the sales office and say I'm interested in Fios Data. Be back online in no time. Verizon might be kozying up to the MPAA and RIAA but they don't really want to let go of a Revenue stream forever over it.
· 2010-Jan-20 5:36 pm: ·
David VIP join:2002-05-30 Granite City, IL kudos:102
As a member of a bunch of select torrent sites, I use good ol FiOS for my P2P usage. It's lovely and I will miss it when I move in with the GF (who has Comcast) and no access to FiOS.
That being said, I will manage to have a remote PC at my current home (living with mommy) so I can continue to use the FiOS at my leisure. Then transfer the stuff over to my main PC.
And with Peer Guardian acting as my friend, I don't see a problem.
Once illegal "P2P" traffic drops below, let's throw 50% out there, AND total bittorrent traffic falls below the 20%-60% of ALL internet traffic (estimations widely vary) down to under 5%, then you might have a point..Until then, the VAST majority of "P2P" traffic consists of copyrighted content/intellectual property. If it wasn't, you wouldn't have articles such as these:
Let me add a requirement for the whole "you might have a point"...Once sites like TPB, Torrentz, ISOHunt, etc. have their Top 100 (or whatever) lists not being DOMINATED by protected content, THEN you will have a point...
Until then, you're just being intellectually dishonest.
Verizon sent me the "DEPLOYMENT IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS IMMINENT" letter today.
If we ever figure out whether Verizon is a black hat or not, don't tell me. If I can afford 20-50Mb upstream, I'm signing up. I gots servers I gots to get online.
Perhaps the MPAA should lose their connectivity for repeated IP infringement violations.
They actually think people should respect their intellectual property rights while they blatantly ignore the intellectual property rights of others? Laughable.
The RIAA and MPAA would be able to claim this moral high ground if they weren't criminal organizations engaged in blackmail, extortion, bribery and IP theft and infringement.
The success of some of the members of the RIAA and MPAA was due to un-prosecuted IP infringement although a few of them only ripped off (completely legal BTW) the public domain. This doesn't mean I condone copyright infringement but ISPs acting as copyright cops bypasses due process and that's very bad.
Kicking people off the network costs VZ money, both in potential lost revenue after the customer disconnects, and in actually executing the process of booting someone off. Having worked in several VZ-sized companies, I know that they tend to look at any task as requiring 30 minutes of time, which equates to half of some employee's hourly wage, and that productivity cost adds up quickly.
So, VZ may not yet be interested in actually following through on booting customers for DMCA violations, but to avoid making an enemy of the entertainment industry, they at least need to make a show of supporting the industry's position on the issue.
Verizon needs to talk a tougher game, but in reality their own advertising materials indicate possible uses for 15, 25, 35, 50 megabit tiered broadband services. Ie, download a "DVD" in X amount of minutes or music or upload X amount of photos, etc. Verizon knows ALOT of it's broadband subscribership is NOT going to be utilizing the service for 100% legal use. The corporate interests still need to balance that with actually HAVING a customer base-- so in practical terms they will mostly go after those who are the "worst of the worst"... which the riaa & mpaa will have to settle for as a win-win, since these so-called consumers use the *MOST* bandwidth anyhow making the service much less profitable for the ISP..
The not 100% legal use of the internet is a primary reason for the kind of demand for services which got VERY GREEDY corporations to put aside self interests and provide what consumers want. The entertainment industry for decades created a protectionist ideology about it's content, licensing and fought against technologies that enabled consumers to control & copy content. When you get down to the core issues at hand.. the entertainment industry wants what alot of other industries want.. the manipulation of a democracy into another form of government to protect it's interests (as you can imagine, that's really not pro consumer or anything resembling social justice). Now maybe, just maybe some legislators will wake up to what is happening and tell these special interests what they can go do with a broken glass bottle.
If verizon wants to get to 40% market share where it now has FIOS deployed (FIOS-READY), guess which side will win out?
Re: tough talk on one end, advertising on the other..
The United States has been moving toward a European model of governance for a while. The current Admin. is merely escalating the cause. So this news about Verizon isn't surprising. Ironically Europeans are actually voting and moving slightly toward a more American system, or perhaps an ancient Greek system.
My biggest concern is the unfettered and unchecked power that Verizon gives both the RIAA and MPAA. Whether justified or not in their piracy causes, these corporate associations have already demonstrated a flagrant disregard for the law.
Allegedly the reporting process itself is said to be secret, therefore, the RIAA and MPAA can make accusations about any broadband subscriber. And since the process is not transparent, the subscriber would have little means to protect themselves. The content provider would receive autonomy and impunity not only over regulating their content, but could even infringe on basic rights, including those of communication.
So again, the importance of proper checks and balances and transparency in this process is the real issue. Too bad Washington lobbyists would never allow such a debate to see the light of day. I could easily see other publishing lobbyists pushing for the same type of authority.
We do reserve the right to discontinue service. But we don't throttle bandwidth like Comcast was doing.
·
·
·
