Security Watch

Point-Counterpoint: ISP Responsibility

Russ and a reader argue about the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on Grokster and file sharing.

• By Keith Ward
• 08/01/2005

The day of the open, unfettered and completely unmonitored Internet connection may well be over—and if it isn't, it should be. ISPs should be held accountable for the actions of the subscribers they've courted through promises to allow spam and/or hacking."

Here's part of their dialogue. I thought you'd enjoy it.

Best,

Keith Ward
Editor, Security Watch
[email protected]

Point: You Can't Make End Users Behave

I disagree with Russ on the issue of ISPs being responsible for the content users send. It will lead to censorship, perhaps subtly at first, but censorship nonetheless.

A big part of it is holding individuals personally responsible for whatthey do. I know that spammers and virus writers are hard to track down(or so it would appear), but there are law enforcement people working to get them.

As for copyright infringement, I think people are going tohave to stand up to the lobbyists and the media industry and fight for fair use of materials that have been legally obtained.

The video industry, for example, is missing the boat on digital distribution. I would pay for a service that lets me download full-length movies to purchase (none of that limited-time renting for me).

My family business is making baseball pitching machines. It has always been a high-liability industry. I cannot be responsible for each user, whether or not he or she maintains their machine, or keeps users out of the batting cage when they should not be in there. The same logic can be applied to most industries. The end-user has ultimate control over how he or she is using the product. The manufacturer or provider does not usually stand next to the user and make sure they behave.

-- James Giovagnoli

Counterpoint: ISPs Must Do More

James,

To compare ISPs to the family business selling pitching machines is a poor comparison. If you rented such machines, that might be a better one. ISPs don't sell bandwidth to consumers—they effectively provide a service by which the consumer uses the ISP's bandwidth for his or her own purpose. There's no purchase; merely a fee for use. That's more akin to paying to get on a roller coaster at a fair, which as we know involves the fair/ride owner being responsible for injuries by the riders.

More importantly, there's no way your family business can ensure that one of your customers never does anything silly with a pitching machine. However, ISPs *can* ensure (with a very high degree of certainty) whether or not your computer is infected with a virus which is spreading. As such, it's very possible for them to keep you from harming others by your actions, or lack thereof. Since they're selling a service, I think it's wrong that they can claim they have no responsibility for what traverses that service, particularly to their own customers.

As for "fair use", fair use is fine—providing it can be kept fair. If there's no way for me to provide you with a digital stream of a video without making it possible for that stream to be copied and replayed by someone who hasn't paid for it, then the use of the stream isn't fair to the copyright holder. Fair use must make it fair to both parties. The alternative, when it isn't possible to make it fair to both parties, is to not deliver the service at all.

You may be ready to pay for the video streaming service, but unless the owner can ensure his future profits, it would be silly to provide it to you. Consumers need to vote with their dollars if they feel this arrangement isn't adequate. I suspect that the majority of honest consumers will be satisfied with the services that are being provided today, but if the tide changes, owners won't reap the profits they expect, and will work to provide an alternative (or discontinue the service completely.) That's capitalism, and just fine by me.

-- Russ Cooper