WASHINGTON — Internet users who illegally share music, movies or TV shows online may soon get warning notices from their service providers that they are violating copyright law. Ignore the notices, and violators could face an Internet slow-down for 48 hours. Those who claim they’re innocent can protest — for a fee.
For the first time since a spate of aggressive and unpopular lawsuits almost a decade ago, the music and movie industries are going after Internet users they accuse of swapping copyrighted files online. But unlike the lawsuits from the mid-2000s — which swept up everyone from young kids to the elderly with sometimes ruinous financial penalties and court costs — the latest effort is aimed at educating casual Internet pirates and convincing them to stop. There are multiple chances to make amends, and no real, legal consequences under the program if they don’t.
“There’s a bunch of questions that need to be answered because there are ways that this could end up causing problems for Internet users,” such as the bureacratic headache of being falsely accused, said David Sohn, general counsel for the Center for Democracy and Technology, a Washington-based civil liberties group. But he added: “There’s also the potential for this to have an impact in reducing piracy in ways that don’t carry a lot of collateral damage.”
The Copyright Alert System was put into effect this week by the nation’s five biggest Internet service providers — Verizon, AT&T, Time Warner Cable, Comcast and Cablevision — and the two major associations representing industry — the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America.
Under the new program, the industry will monitor “peer-to-peer” software services for evidence of copyrighted files being shared. Each complaints will prompt a customer’s Internet provider to notify the customer that their Internet address has been detected sharing files illegally. Depending on the service provider, the first couple of alerts will likely be an email warning. Subsequent alerts might require a person to acknowledge receipt or review educational materials. If a final warning is ignored, a person could be subject to speed-throttling for 48 hours or another similar “mitigation measure.”
After five or six “strikes,” however, the person won’t face any repercussions under the program and is likely to be ignored. It’s unclear whether such repeat offenders would be more likely at that point to face an expensive lawsuit.