One ISP says RIAA must pay for piracy protection

UPDATE 8:40 a.m. PT: Click here for e-mail correspondence between Jerry Scroggin and copyright owners such as Warner Bros and the family of Frank Zappa.

Jerry Scroggin, owner-operator of Bayou Internet and Communications, wants the music and film industries to know that he's not a cop and he doesn't work for free.

Scroggin, who sells Internet access to between 10,000 and 12,000 customers in Louisiana, heard the news on Friday that the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has opted out of suing individuals for pirating music. Instead, the group representing the four largest music labels is forging partnerships with Internet service providers and asking them to crack down on suspected file sharers.

Jerry Scroggin owns his own small ISP and he says protecting music costs money.

(Credit: Jerry Scroggin)

According to Scroggin, if RIAA representatives ask the help of his ISP, they had better bring their checkbook--and leave the legal threats at home. (CNET News obtained a copy of the RIAA's new notice to ISPs here). Scroggin said that he receives several notices each month with requests that he remove suspected file sharers from his network. Each time, he gets such a notice from an entertainment company, he sends the same reply.

"I ask for their billing address," Scroggin said. "Usually, I never hear back."

Scroggin has provided some of the e-mail he's received from copyright owners and included in them is an example of his typical response.

Scroggin's case underscores a potential obstacle for the RIAA's plan to enlist the help of ISPs. Small companies like his are innocent bystanders in the music industry's war on copyright infringement. Nonetheless, they are asked to help enforce copyright law free of charge. Many of them can't afford it, he said. Significant resources must be devoted to chasing down suspected file sharers and there's a real cost to that. After talking to Scroggin, it sounds as if the entertainment sector might also have taken a heavy-handed approach to dealing with ISPs in the past and there might be some bad blood built up.

"They have the right to protect their songs or music or pictures," Scroggin said. "But they don't have the right to tell me I have to be the one protecting it. I don't want anyone doing anything illegal on my network, but we don't work for free."

Reached late Sunday night, an RIAA spokesman declined to comment.

Scroggin wants to be reasonable. He tells me he doesn't want to come across as a "hard ass." He just wants someone in big media to understand his position as the operator of a small business.

Incorporated in 1995, Bayou Internet and Communications, based in Monroe, La., typically sells Internet access to small businesses, residences, and municipal services. His customers include parish court houses, homeowners, district attorneys, and rural hospitals. The company is probably similar to lots of small ISPs around the country that operate on tight budgets and must compete against much larger players, such as Comcast or AT&T.

Scroggin is no radical. He respects the law and said he has a long history of cooperating with authorities to protect people from harm.

"If it was life threatening, I'm the first to jump," he said. "We've been contacted by police over Denial of Service and bot attacks. We'll have Secret Service and FBI conversations. We help if police are on perv watch."

But protecting against copyright violations just doesn't have the same urgency, not enough that that ISPs should be asked to work without compensation, Scroggin said. Here are the realities of being "HBO's free police," he said.

First, when a media company demands he kick a customer off the network, there is very little in the way of proof offered that the person in question has committed a crime, according to Scroggin. Yet, entertainment companies want Scroggin to simply wave goodbye to a customer who might have signed up for a three-year plan. At $40 per month, that customer is potentially worth $1,440 to Scroggin over the life of the plan. That, says the ISP owner, is unreasonable.

Next, it's expensive and time consuming to ask highly paid technicians to chase down IP logs and customer IDs, Scroggin said, noting that it's especially difficult nowadays because it's extremely easy to spoof IP addresses.

And then there are the letters Scroggin receives from Hollywood that demand he act or else.

"I'm not doing anything to damage their business," Scroggin said. "But somehow this 99-cent song is my fault."

Scroggin warns that the film and music industries must try a new tack if they want cooperation from ISPs. They can start by helping to cover some of the costs for helping to enforce copyright.

"There's got to be a better way than HBO sending me threatening e-mail," he said. "What I'm saying is, let's sit at the table and come up with a way that works for everyone, including the customers."

For more stories, see: RIAA's year-end shocker

[MaggieLeber]

Pay *some* of the costs?

How about pay *all* of the costs? And indemnify the ISP against the downside if RIAA's case is faulty. As if often has been so far.

[timber2005]

Well if they paid all the costs and did the searching too I'd be concerned over them planting some data. And, what if they paid, found that the person was innocent? They might demand to the ISP that they STILL terminate the customer because the RIAA paid for the work.

[abcd9009]

the best thing would be to create a third party neutral group/company which would work on behalf of the ISP and RIAA/MPAA paid for by ISP & RIAA/MPAA who's sole purpose would be to spoof, something like the NSA for Entertainment Industry.

RIAA just wants a free ride. I completely agree with Scroggin. Just wish that Comcast & AT&T share his views instead of assuming the consumers are always wrong and giving the usual BS "we appreciate your business".

THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH!!!

[Lerianis]

Timber2005, that is exactly what I am worried about. They go through all the trouble of monitoring a person's connection (the RIAA or someone else), spend the money, find out that they are NOT sharing the things in question, and still insist that the person is disconnected because 'someone was using their connection to do this!'

[eBob1]

Hey, um, there are no county court houses in Louisiana because there are no counties there. That should be "parish court houses".

[sandonet]

Thank you for the heads up. We have corrected that.

[Harry D]

Forget the costs, how about *probable cause*? A suspicion is not enough to warrant punitive action. The RIAA is a tyranny, plain and simple.

[Lerianis]

True. Though, most times when they say "There is a suspicion", they have actually connected with the IP address in question and gotten the music in question from it. That is more than a suspicion, but again - if someone has a wireless network, whether it is CP the person is trading illegally or music, you CANNOT assume that it is the person who owns the connection!

[Sausagebiscuit]

Network neutrality is slowing fading away.

[HlLLARY CLITON]

I think the RIAA should pay all of us

[jmb-lawyer]

The harsh truth is that the content industry simply doesn't believe in their so-called "piracy" numbers. If they truly believed that Internet infringement was costing them billions of dollars, as they claim, they wouldn't hesitate to reach for their checkbook to pay the ISPs to spend resources trying to do what 40,000 law suits didn't do.

BTW, I am confused, when they use the term "piracy" are they referring to those people in the Gulf of Aden or the fun Johnny Deep "piracy?" Infringement is wrong. But vilifying, suing, and harassing our kids hasn?t and won?t work. They need to recognize the CD is a dying format; after all, it is the digital singles business that is killing the CD double-platinum business model, as well as fierce competition from other digital entertainment formats (e.g., DVDs, game software, ringtones, etc.), which have grabbed huge entertainment market share from CD sales. I hope it isn?t too late, but to continue to exist the record labels need to find a new business model that works in the Internet age.

[multimediavt]

Ahh, but the market data shows that CDs are still holding steady, or growing year-to-year. The data also says that RIAA labels are more profitable now than they were ten years ago (prior to the Internet getting to most average folks).

Folks, this is greed, plain and simple. The type of "pirate" behavior that the RIAA and MPAA are going after has been around since the audio and video cassette. The Internet just makes it more visible and (arguably) easier to do, yet the recording and movie industry continue to garner high profits, even in economic hard times. THEY ARE NOT LOSING MONEY!

What the Internet (and even home recording technologies) is doing is eroding their power base and control over what we hear and see. They (MPAA/RIAA) are scared to death that the behemoth they created to make and distribute content is about to die. A behemoth (at least in the MPAA's case) that was built on patent and copyright infringement itself! Yeah folks, ever wonder why films are made in Hollywood? It's because, in the late 1800s, early 1900s all the patents for motion picture cameras and projectors were owned by companies in the Northeastern United States. At some point (and this is documented) a friend of a filmmaker that didn't want to pay the patent royalties invited his buddy to come out to California, three thousand miles away where the weather was nice a lot, and where the patent guys would have a hard time finding them. It's just a tad bit hypocritical of these guys to turn around and start going after John Q. Public for something they did in the beginning of the 20th century.

Getting back to the story, I think more ISPs, universities, etc. should wake up and realize that these guys want them to police this stuff for free when it's not their job to do this! It plainly states in the copyright and patent registration forms and statutes that it's the copyright holder's responsibility to police the copyright or patent, not law enforcement. Law enforcement only gets involved in cases of fraudulent copying (i.e., guy selling bootlegs on the street or massive theft of copyright). Other than cases like that it's a civil matter and that enforcement lies with the copyright holder, not the police nor anyone else.

I am an audio engineer as well as being a singer. I love music. I record music (album for a buddy last year from home). I believe in copyright, but only for its intended purpose-to protect the rights of the originator of a work to claim it as their original work-not to use it as a stick to draw blood from a turnip! If someone is truly ripping me off and I can show that money is actually being made by someone stealing my work will I go after them. Otherwise, it just benefits me. Gets my recording into more people's ears (or eyes in the case of video). Sure they may not pay for that song, or that movie, but they will pay for other things I do in the future. Why? Because, they like it and people will always support artists they like either by going to a live performance or buying a recording. These guys are just greedy, hypocritical bastards and we need to tell them to shut up and go away already. We don't need them anymore to be successful musicians or filmmakers. Period.

[millergrobert]

It is totally fair to expect the RIAA to help pay for the policing they are asking to ISPs to do. ISPs will require proof that the industry has actually found a music pirate. However, if the pirate is actually a pirate they are probably savvy enough to figure out how to get onto the internet without having a dedicated link, this brings up even more situations for abuse by both the pirate and the Industry. i.e. if someone is stealing my internet signal and I don't know about it, will I be removed from the network.

Robert

[man_w_balls]

kudos to Jerry Scroggin for standing up for the American way of life

remember after 9/11 when they wanted to turn everybody into cops, including mailmen?
it shouldn't be neighbors spying on neighbors - people should respect each other's privacy
unfortunately Obama seems happy with the illegal wiretapping status quo, where we neeed Change.

[Seaspray0]

You can blame the current Bush administration for implimenting the wiretapping; you can blame the Obama administration if it maintains that status quo. However, the RIAA doesn't have anything to do with illegal wiretapping; they've only harrassed individuals with lawsuits (many of them innocent) and now intend to harrass ISP's. I think the lawers are behind all of it.

[bobkoure]

Apparently, the RIAA statement that "we haven't sued anyone for months" isn't true.
See http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/20/136255 where SD's own NewYorkCountryLawyer (Ray Beckerman) details their mis-statement.
Given the history the RIAA lawyers have of playing fast and loose with the truth in the court, I would have expected news organizations like C|Net to have investigated a bit more.

Also - any ISP folks reading this, check the SD post that begins [i]Reminder: I am not a lawyer in the US.[/i], which notes that the ISP requests are being filed under 17 USC ss. 512(c)(3), but should more appropriately be 17 USC ss. 512 (a) which states that you are not obligated to do anything.
Personally, I'd just hire Ray to deal with these folks. He'd have fun and you'd save money.

Oh - my only connection with Ray is that I've read many of his postings over the years.

[bigdogpete43]

Amen brother....As an operator of an ISP we also try to do the right thing. But between these guys, the CALEA people (a whole different story big brother is definitely watching), and spammers/abuse, we have our hands full as it is. The demands they make are basically ludicrous. I have no NDA in place with them, I have nothing to go on except their word, and I would be glad to respond to any and all court orders for information. But until I see a court order, we typically don't respond at all. You want to know something about any of my customers? Show me a court order--that is my policy.

[bicparker]

You bring up a good point in all of this... No NDA.

The companies that the RIAA represent include media companies in direct competition with ISP's.

I work as an IT consultant and there are no companies I have worked with that would even let me in the door or have a serious conversation without an NDA. The information that the RIAA is requesting is no different and even if you received a court order, you should still require an NDA (just because a court order is issued does not mean that this can't be applied for in a motion, this is not law enforcement, the RIAA is still a private organization).

The RIAA is all about IP and if they don't understand the requirements of an NDA, then they should not have access to other people's IP.

I can just see the irony of the RIAA being sued for violating an NDA because they shared out intellectual property.

[soutrik93]

You and Mr. Scroggin are the last people on earth defending privacy it seems. here in the tri-state all the smaller isps like you guys have all but died out, replaced by companies like Comcast that'll give you up even if the RIAA didnt ask them to.
keep up the fight guys

[bmn_1213]

This ISP operator is an idiot and also a good representation of how are rights are being sold to the highest bidder. What right does any organization have to unfettered access to IP logs and customer private data? This ****** will sell it if you meet the price. He's also willing to buddy up to law enforcement or domestic spying operations of the FBI. You are the customer. You are the person putting money in his pocket. He should be defending you first and foremost. Send this looser packing.

[Mystigo]

Dude. That's a bit harsh. For one thing he is required to comply with the law. He can't just say no to a lawful court order. And with regard to IP logs and customer's private data -it was not my take-away that he was offering that for sale. He wants compensation for the resources he needs to comply with the RIAAs request.

The RIAA has also suggested that their requests are based on a cooperative attitude. They do not appear to be threatening legal action against the ISPs that don't comply. This may be a bit of a break-through for the RIAA. They may have realized that taking a legal two-by-four and flailing it wildly at their customers isn't doing them the slightest bit of good, and may have made them one of the most universally reviled corporate groups in history.

If the RIAA genuinely wants to change attitudes this approach is an excellent one. I for one would not want to lose my internet service and if I got a nasty letter threatening to take it away I'd probably do something about it. It is a far more proportionate response to the problem than sending $3000 insta-fines to Grandma and the kids.

Sorry that got a bit rambly, but I think you should give the ISP guy a break. If the RIAA is genuinely trying to solve the problem, then with a few details ironed out, this approach could make some head-way in a fair and much more reasonable manner.

[make_or_break]

Now who's being the selfish one here? No service, ISP, cell phone or otherwise, has to protect YOUR interests if you're going to proceed with committing illegal acts while using that service. You may have paid for the use of that ISP, but there's no legal right on your behalf that excludes you from acting in a law-abiding and responsible manner within the parameters of the service's user's agreement.

[donaldjwood]

Is Ford responsible when someone speeds in one of their cars? Should Ford put a governor on their cars so folks can't speed? What can ford do to prevent bank robberies with their vehicle as a 'getaway car'? etc., etc., etc.

[Gasaraki]

Cars do have governors...

[mdsix]

@Gasaraki

Even so, cars can still speed...

[OmegaWolf747]

The RIAA is losing the fight against online freedoms and will soon go the way of the dino and the dodo. Exit stage left and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[_PJ_]

I completely agree with this. ISP is like a traffic network just as a road system would be. If the Feds want to do a sting on a highway to catch drug runners they have to pay for it, the state, county, or city doesn't. I see no difference, both are trying to catch someone doing something illegal, and that party should pay for what they want done. Work isn't charity unless its listed as so.

[missapple27]

I once missed a couple of episodes of a favorite TV show, so I tried to watch it online at NBC's website but they didn't have full episodes of it, so I search the internet and found I could download those episodes to watch on my computer and I did. I got two notices from CharterCommunications saying that NBC claims someone at my IP address was stealing copyrighted material and to stop or get kicked off my account. That really ticked me off because I only wanted to watch 2 episodes of a show that I normally watch on my TV. And I deleted the videos once I watched them--just like I would erase a recording from TV after watching it. What's the big difference?

[alangerow]

The difference is they don't make money off of advertising from illegal downloads, because the commercials are removed. They want to lock people into the old advertising schemes because they know how they worked and it worked for them. Fear is a driving force in the world, and it ruins lives. They fear new models, though are FINALLY trying to learn (Hulu is a great example, and Joost before it). If they only allowed that with downloadable versions so I wouldn't have to be tethered to a TV or computer ... I'll watch commercials, I just want to watch TV on my own terms, not when and where they let me.

[MSSlayer]

I don't know about missapple, but I am not susceptible to advertising, so do not make my buying decisions based on ads.

[sshappyjack]

MSSlayer: Most people say they are not susceptible to advertisements, but companies still pay miilions for it. They must think it is worth it. I know that I used to feel the same way, but it wasn't until I realized that the companies wouldn't pay for something if it didn't work, that I really started to examine the advertisements coming my way. I think that if one admits that ads do affect them, then they are better prepared to not be overly influenced.

[MSSlayer]

Well, sometimes they influence me, but I have never bought something because of an ad.

There have been ads that annoy the crap out of me and I stop buying their product forever.

[voyager529]

First off, let's remember the old addage: "A fool and his money are soon parted". You and I might not be terribly susceptible to TV ads, but I'll take a wild guess that you've never bought jeans for yourself that cost more than $60 either. There are a huge number of stupid people in the world, and relatively few of them come to c|Net. It's the dumb eyeballs that buy stuff solely on TV ads.

Next, there's the "indirect sales". No, you and I might not buy a Lexus because of an ad, but advertising helps refine the mindshare of a product. Lexus commercials are generally very classy, slow moving, and focus on the luxury aspects of a car that indicate the affluence of the driver. Lexus' are just a high end Toyota, but the ads are a method of refining how customers think about a product, even if they never buy it. Thinking Lexus' are classy cars adds value to the buyer who wants his car to be a status symbol - and they can charge for that.

Next up, let's look at it from the ISP standpoint. I've never looked at an ISP bandwidth report, but I can surmise that the top 5% of bandwidth users are probably pirating alot of content (no one is going to download 400GBytes in a month looking at Facebook, and people uploading 200GBytes a month probably aren't all regular Youtubers). Sure they're paying their $40 a month, but if more of their stuff goes into the pipes than most 5 of their other customers, then they're really not profitable to the ISP. If it costs Comcast $40 to support their connection, then it's in Comcast's best interest to try to bump them off. The RIAA avoids a losing lawsuit, Adobe prevents the further distribution of Photoshop - slightly, Comcast has a reason to bump off a customer that really isn't profitable to them, and each of the culprits can point fingers at the others.

I agree with this guy, saying that if you want information about my customers that you're going to have to cover my costs for it. That's not a bad policy because if the RIAA has a decent amount of evidence that kicking this person off the 'net is going to save them more money than it'll cost to get the information to put the nail in the coffin, then they'll do it. It's like the South African law saying that the loser of a lawsuit pays the winner, regardless of who dragged who to court. If someone sues me and I end up winning, they get to pay me what they were suing me for. This system, while not without it's flaws, ensures that if I bring someone to court, that I better have all of my facts together and be able to make an irrefutable case against them. This guy's policy is similar - if the cost of getting the information is higher than what they're probably losing by leaving well enough alone, then it weeds out the frivolous cases and makes the war on file-sharers significantly less profitable for them.

Joey

[robzila]

I think the best comment so far was from bmn_1213. I happen to live in the same area as this ISP and the fact that Scroggin simply states that he will sell my info to a private organization without a Court order, has me quickly looking for another ISP. I have passed this article link to everyone else I know that is a Bayou Internet customer. Jerry, you've let your mouth and your wallet take over what was left of your good judgment. Here's to hoping that you see the error of your ways...

[sandonet]

Maybe your negative impression of Jerry is my fault. I focused this story on one specific problem of the RIAA's plan to enlist ISP as copyright enforcers. I thought people would understand clearly that Jerry is not in favor of the idea on numerous grounds. I did say he objects to receiving allegations against customers that are typically unsupported by proof. My impression was Jerry cares very much about his customers privacy.

[robzila]

I can appreciate Scroggin's reluctance to do any work for free, and I can appreciate his concern that his current customers might go running for the hills in search of another ISP after his comments here. However, I, nor others that I know would ever consent to their privacy being violated simply because the RIAA or other concerned parties paid for the information from my ISP. The way i look at it, you either have a court order or you DO NOT have a court order. PERIOD!

[alangerow]

Dude, every major ISP will sell your data, not only without a court order, but for free. AT&T, Comcast, Verizon ... they'll cover the cost of employee's time, it's on the house. Verizon has traditionally held out better than the other operators, but everybody's caving in because getting in good with the entertainment industry means they can become a distributor (Comcast with it's cable service, and AT&T and Verizon are getting into the entertainment delivery business).

[robzila]

While selling my data is nothing new, THAT data isn't being used to help someone else sue me for copyright infringement, while THIS data would be. As far as I am concerned, the burden of proof lies with the accuser, and before my ISP gives up any info on me, he had better be more concerned with me as a customer than upsetting the powers that be at the RIAA. I pay his bills, not them. This is precisely the reason that I use the ISP in question, and have for a very long time. Now Jerry says he'll do it as long as they pay for his time. I'm sorry, but that's not good enough.

[willbillion]

I am in total agreement with Scroggins. I applaud his simple and straight-to-the-point business actions. Business is Business. It's nothing personal. It is simple to just follow the rules that are set forth in order to properly run a business. It's embarrassing to see such established, widely known successful businesses starting to pussyfoot around and deliberately breaking the rules. Everyone knows that's not how you conduct business in a professional manner. It's handled extremely shambolic. And do I have to mention that we smell fear from the big guys? Everyone's hiding and are unavailable for comment. LOL!.. and also sending letters of demand!... and threats?!! Scroggin, I'm with you brother.... keepin it business, sharp and simple. You don't pay a dime. They'll pay.

[tekwiz4u]

All i can say is 'STICK IT TO THEM !!!"

ISP's should NOT be policing users period. But if the RIAA are still going to cry about this UNSTOPPABLE problem, then they should foot all of the costs. When are they going to wake up and start smelling what they're shoveling?

LAME!

As a former small ISP, this is just another way for the communications/LECs to put even more pressure on the mom and pop shops still left in the US. For example, TW, is a media giant and serves many internet customers within its cable and telecom holdings and can enforce this as they want to on their own network.

As an ISP you sell unlimited, uncontrolled access to the internet. My company was handed many subpoenas through out its 10 year history. We were in no way responsible/liable for what the customer had done. The customer is responsible for their own actions, just as they are in society. It is not the ISP's responsibility to police every packet that crosses the wire. If they wanted to do that they could do it more effectively at the network peering points through out the US and world instead of at the edge.

[godseyesore]

I'm all for sticking it to RIAA, but what happens when they pay up? ISP becomes defacto gestapo for RIAA, selling it's soul for silver.