funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
1 edit | reply to TKJunkMail
Re: I like this
said by TKJunkMail  :A common sense attitude. The ISP has every right to police their network, even if they are not required to do so by law. Agreed, it certainly has the responsibility to respond to an outside complaint. That's been part of being an ISP since day one.
As far as copyright cop, the DMCA has forced some duties upon ISPs. We have Cox's side of the story (which sounds pretty reasonable), but we've only heard from one person who was on the receiving end of this. He didn't mention whether Cox made numerous tries to resolve the matter. I'd like to hear more information from people like this.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
thevorpal
join:2007-11-16
Alexandria, VA
| reply to fiberguy
The legal fees are minimal, and were limited to guidance and a policy by which I will comply with local and federal laws. I comply with court orders, and the associated legal reporting requirements.
You seem to think that I'm encouraging any sort of illegal behavior. I am not. What I do is comply with the laws as written, and I act as a transparant middle man.
As for quoting 'network', though it isn't large, it is profitable enough to cover the costs for my post-graduate studies, which, unfortunately, are not inexpensive. |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| reply to TKJunkMail
A user HAS EVERY RIGHT to ignore the letters and risk being sued. These letters might be generated falsely, considering many tactics the AA's use. Second, even if legit, who is to say a user can't take the risk on their own accord. Should the state take your license after 3 tickets? Most states require a substantial amount of points before a license is revoked. On your basis, if a person has three tickets in their life, the state has cause to kick them from driving. Do you ever hear yourself speak, or just pretend to talk and act like you know a lot? It must be a hard job being chastised constantly and being TK JUNK MAIL. |
|
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·BroadVoice
| reply to thevorpal
said by thevorpal :said by wifi4milez :said by thevorpal :Because these companies can effectively enact policies that go beyond what is required by legislation in an effort to serve as a policing body, they are attempting to expand their jurisdiction in a manner that is hostile to the People of that community. Thats a bad example. Look at another way, millions of people ride buses/trains everyday. Almost every bus/train has rules that seek to reduce rowdy behavior. Customers that are really loud and cause problems for other riders will be kicked off the bus/train. There is certainly no law against being rowdy, however the rider agrees to abide by certain rules when he/she gets on the bus/train. The situation at hand is no different, by using their (Cox) service you agree to abide by their rules. It is a perfectly valid example because it is a description of the actual situation. You lose the context when you try to come up with automobile analogies. And to top it off, your analogy explicitly fails. There is certainly no law against being rowdy There most certainly are such laws. » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorderly_conduct Another bad example on your behalf. You can/will get kicked off a bus/train for non-arrestable offences. For instance, in many cities eating and drinking on a bus will get you kicked off. That is certainly not disorderly conduct, and you will not be charged with anything; just asked to leave. The same applies to rowdy behavior. If what you are doing on the bus/train is interfering with the other passengers (playing music or talking loudly), you will be asked to leave. Again, in most cases you will not be subject to arrest for disorderly conduct as you have broken no law and have simply gone against the rules of the bus/train. Only if you refuse to disembark from the bus/train are you then subject to disorderly conduct, as THAT is an offence. Lets hope we are done here, as you arent going to win this one.
--
If history teaches us anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly.
-Ronald Reagan-
|
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | reply to thevorpal
if you weren't encouraging illegal behavior you would be doing the same thing as COX. you'd be shutting these people off. Instead you keep giving them service and allow them to do it. |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :Franchises became non-exclusive by law years ago. So no cable company is protected from competition. Even if Franchises are no longer exclusive, there is the problem that the cost of wiring an area that already has coverage makes the attempt not cost effective. The old company has the benefit of their having wired the area when they were exclusive and thus has a major advantage. The only possible solution is to make the "Last Mile" a separate company who sells access to ANY Cable Company who wants to service the area. |
|
battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000 | reply to jc100
"A user HAS EVERY RIGHT to ignore the letters and risk being sued."
Very true. Cox also has every right to do what they are doing. If you don't like their policy then take your business else where. |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | reply to thevorpal
I don't want real laws being established just to prevent pseudo-laws. The real problem is the DMCA provisions that make Cox think it needs to take these steps. Less laws, not more, please. |
|
thevorpal
join:2007-11-16
Alexandria, VA
| said by axus :I don't want real laws being established just to prevent pseudo-laws. The real problem is the DMCA provisions that make Cox think it needs to take these steps. Less laws, not more, please. That is why the attempt to make this a law, if such a law is necessary (Which I do not believe that it is), should be done.
In my opinion the laws that protect copyright in the US are sufficient, and excess penalties are not necessary. Nor are they compatable with the concept of copyright in the first place.
Copyright is a privledge that we the people, grant to the authors of creative works. It is not some default state that creative content innately exists in without it being granted by the public. These laws should be aimed at encouraging new creative works, and still allowing deriviative creative works to be inspired. A major issue here is that people have forgotten that copyright is a temporary limitation that we place on ourselves.
A pseudo-law enforced by a corporation is anaethma to the concepts of the Constitution of the United States. |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| reply to Matt
My only question for Cox would be: Do they consider any DMCA request as counting towards the "Three Strikes" regardless of the DMCA request's validity.
Suppose I had uploaded a music file entitled "Oops Brittney.mp3" to a P2P network. Now let's suppose that this file wasn't the Brittney Spears song "Oops, I did it again!", but audio of me talking about the downfall of popular music. (In other words, something I own the rights to.) Now Brittney's record label might that file, assume it's a copyrighted song, and send my provider a DMCA notice. Would that notice count as "Strike 1" even though there's no validity to it? If that audio was Part 1 of a 5 part series, could the record label send in 5 separate DMCA notices and knock me offline?
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar and/or a photo book. Shooting For A Cause |
|
thevorpal
join:2007-11-16
Alexandria, VA
| reply to hottboiinnc
said by hottboiinnc :if you weren't encouraging illegal behavior you would be doing the same thing as COX. you'd be shutting these people off. Instead you keep giving them service and allow them to do it. I sincerely hope that you are being sarcastic with that comment. |
|
thevorpal
join:2007-11-16
Alexandria, VA
| reply to wifi4milez
Actually if you look at your post, you have proved my point.
Again, in most cases you will not be subject to arrest for disorderly conduct as you have broken no law and have simply gone against the rules of the bus/train. Only if you refuse to disembark from the bus/train are you then subject to disorderly conduct, as THAT is an offence. This is my point.
You eat on the bus, and someone complains (The copyright holder) to the conductor.
The conductor complies with the rules, asks you to stop eating, and calls the police when you become disorderly (Passing along the DMCA request)
The police arrive and cite you for disorderly conduct (The copyright holder presents evidence and sues you in civil court)
That is why this is a major issue, by COX acton on its own initiative, it cuts out the legal protections that were enacted because DMCA complaints in and of themselves do NOT carry any legal weight as evidence of wrongdoing. |
|
thevorpal
join:2007-11-16
Alexandria, VA | reply to Jason Levine
Not only that, but remember that a DMCA request in and of itself is not evidence of any wrongdoing, but merely a procedural step. |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| Exactly. It is a very important procedural step, but it is a step nonetheless. And it is a step that is often abused by copyright holders or people who don't like criticism. (e.g. the recent Olympics DMCA requests over the fact that their logo appears for a millisecond on a protest video on YouTube.)
If Cox is taking users offline for merely receiving these requests, they are opening their users up to abuse by overzealous copyright holders (going beyond normal rights protections) and/or by people who can't take criticism. Any of their users who speak out will get a flurry of DMCA requests and Cox, following the 3 Strikes policy, will take the user offline. Critic silenced!
In the legal world, this is called a SLAPP lawsuit and is illegal. Cox could effectively be making "eSLAPP-ing" standard policy.
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar and/or a photo book. Shooting For A Cause |
|
hwy419
join:2008-10-01
Moody, AL
| reply to thevorpal
Permitting infringement on copyright through your network is not illegal. But you should at least treat others as you would have them treat you. Would you like it if others were facilitating infringement on your own copyrighted materials? How would you feel if someone diminished your network profits and livelihood? I believe network admins have an ethical duty to prevent such activity on their networks. Permitting infringement violates the spirit of anti-infringement laws. |
|
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
·Verizon FIOS
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
·BroadVoice
| reply to thevorpal
said by thevorpal :Actually if you look at your post, you have proved my point. Again, in most cases you will not be subject to arrest for disorderly conduct as you have broken no law and have simply gone against the rules of the bus/train. Only if you refuse to disembark from the bus/train are you then subject to disorderly conduct, as THAT is an offence. This is my point. You eat on the bus, and someone complains (The copyright holder) to the conductor. The conductor complies with the rules, asks you to stop eating, and calls the police when you become disorderly (Passing along the DMCA request) The police arrive and cite you for disorderly conduct (The copyright holder presents evidence and sues you in civil court) That is why this is a major issue, by COX acton on its own initiative, it cuts out the legal protections that were enacted because DMCA complaints in and of themselves do NOT carry any legal weight as evidence of wrongdoing. Yawn, you dont listen very well. You are going to try and twist this any way you can to support your point, even when its clear you are incorrect. I am done here.
--
If history teaches us anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly.
-Ronald Reagan-
|
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to willp1
said by willp1 :They do not have the right to police themselves. They provide a service they are not police. I used to run the night shift of a convenience store. We provided a "service". Does that mean I did not have the right to eject a certain person? Acting very suspicious in the vicinity of my liquor display.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to thevorpal
But the DMCA does provide for you to contest the notice. And if you do contest the notice, I am reasonably sure that will force the **AA's hand; either put up (sue), or shut up. I should think that Cox would consider a response from their user challenging the DMCA notice as a "counterstrike". Well, they should consider it as such.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to Jason Levine
Wouldn't you file a counter notice? There is a Cox web page with the instructions for filing one. You basically challenge the assertion by the record label that they have given Cox accurate information; swat the ball back into their court.
The thing is, don't ignore the letter; especially if the complaint has incorrect details.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| That was the part I was questioning. Does Cox immediately give you a strike when the DMCA request comes in? Or do they wait until you don't file a counter-notice? If it is the former, then you could have someone who gets two legitimate strikes against them taken offline because of a third, bogus strike. If it is the latter, then their system is more acceptable.
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar and/or a photo book. Shooting For A Cause |
|
