Several years ago, the RIAA — Recording Industry Association of America — launched a massive wave of lawsuits against people sharing copyrighted recordings without authorization. By the tens of thousands, “John Doe” lawsuits brought anonymous file-sharers into the spotlight, with routine settlements paid by the Does to the tune of thousands of dollars.
As part of this process, the RIAA routinely sends tens of thousands of “takedown notices” to internet providers. The letter usually indicates that property owned by some studio has been found shared, with an IP address and time-stamp that the infringing file was found on a client’s computer. The ISP is instructed to either remove the offending material or the network access of the person who shared the file, and if they do not do so the lawyer will sue the ISP itself for non-compliance with the DMCA.
I’ve long thought the “takedown provision” of the DMCA — Digital Millenium Copyright Act, passed in 1998 — was an onerous burden on ISPs. That is, to ensure an ISP was treated as a “safe harbor” and not subject to getting sued themselves, they were required to disable the network services or web sites of copyright infringers on their networks. There’s a real and profound cost to this kind of compliance, and passing the cost of compliance on to the customers of the ISP is, IMHO, not the right way to go about it.
The cost of pursuing copyright infringement should rightfully be passed to the party claiming infringement: the copyright owner.
One small ISP in Louisiana is trying to get copyright holders to pay for their policing services.
The moment I read this story, I went “Eureka! That’s it!”. For the cost of pursuing and disabling the services of alleged infringers, an ISP should be compensated by the copyright holder. The expectation should be that the recording industry can prosecute the infringer and recoup these costs from the person who’s infringing, right?
I think this may be the perfect solution, allowing ISPs to keep their network access costs competitive while allowing copyright holders to protect their assets. What do you think?





