Reviews:
 ·Charter
 ·Clearwire Wireless
1 edit | Waaa! I'm a pirate, I should do what I want! Plz don't allow the big baddies like Cox to stop me! I should be allowed to steal from everyone like the people above are crying to do!
BTW, this is highly sarcastic.
Any of you pirates read your acceptable use policy lately? Any ISP has the RIGHT to terminate you for piracy. |
|
|
|
AVonGaussPremium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL | Funny, but what you are missing is, you haven't been confirmed to be a "pirate" of anything. Somebody made a claim about you, could have been false, or they could have just wrote down the wrong IP number. |
|
Reviews:
·Charter
·Clearwire Wireless
1 edit | Ip number is a horrible way to go by tracking a pirate.
But yeah, if you're 'accidentally' targetted as a pirate 3 times, you can't bs your way out of it.
People can say you did something when ya didn't once. Once it hits more then twice something screwy is up. |
|
AVonGaussPremium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL
1 edit | What did you say your IP was again? 
Doing a Google search for DCMA False Claims leads to about 40,000 results currently, the first one being an organization that claims 4,000 videos on YouTube violate "their" copyright. |
|
Reviews:
·Charter
·Clearwire Wireless
1 edit | 666.666.666.666
Yeah, I'm THAT awesome.
Well like I said, 3 strikes is a great policy. I honestly can't see a person being called a pirate 3 times without being one, unless someone is out to get them.
But then, if someone is out to get ya, they'll do anything... |
|
| said by Metatron2008: I honestly can't see a person being called a pirate 3 times without being one, unless someone is out to get them. 1. Pirate!
2. Pirate!
3. Pirate!
Boom. Done. You're a pirate. I'm sending your ISP a takedown notice for violating my copyright. Hope you enjoy your dial up, pirate. |
|
| reply to Metatron2008
See the problem with the DMCA is it isn't based on you actually commiting a copyright violation though. DMCA can be faked, or falsed.
Another problem is where do you draw the line in the copyright then? Is viewing a website that has borrowed a copyright image make you in violation as well? The fact is DMCA's can be sent out even if there would be no legal case against you which is why it is wrong to cut off someone's internet.
I agree with the principals behind what Cox is doing but the detection of the piracy needs to be actually accurate and something that could actually stand up in court before I am happy with the policy |
|
| reply to SilverSurfer1
said by SilverSurfer1:said by Metatron2008: I honestly can't see a person being called a pirate 3 times without being one, unless someone is out to get them. 1. Pirate! 2. Pirate! 3. Pirate! Boom. Done. You're a pirate. I'm sending your ISP a takedown notice for violating my copyright. Hope you enjoy your dial up, pirate. Maybe it needs to be 3 unique complaints?
PIRATE!!!
Now that's two unique complaints, I believe the proper term that they use in some boards... For the lulz. |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to AVonGauss
said by AVonGauss:Funny, but what you are missing is, you haven't been confirmed to be a "pirate" of anything. Somebody made a claim about you, could have been false, or they could have just wrote down the wrong IP number. Exactly right. Or maybe they have the right file and the right IP address ... and it's still not a violation. So here's the thing that I'm facing.
In order to do some DPI research on very large swarms chosen automatically by size. I'm considering tests involving P2P swarms with people who probably are transferring files without the permission of the copyright holders. My client will never accumulate more than 3% of the file [saved to RAM, not disk] and will never ask for adjoining pieces. I haven't decided yet as to whether I need to send anything, but if I do, it will be on the exact same terms. After 3% is accumulated, the client will dump out.
It's totally experimental. Basically, I'm looking for funny business in very large swarms. This will generate DMCA notices (if not worse).
If I do this, I'll first notify the MPAA and RIAA as well as Comcast and Verizon. But given that these are all big bureaucracies, I'm guessing that the notification won't make any difference until I respond to the DMCA notices with reference to the prior notice and explanation.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
AVonGaussPremium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL
1 edit | Sounds like you're in for some pain and suffering...
Last I had read about their practices, it basically sounds like they just connect and run down the IP list for violations - a pretty low tech method. The irony being is I don't believe they can seed the file themselves without risking losing the copy protection status, but they probably do seed as well in order to obtain more peers but just haven't been called out on it enough. That's why certain organizations on their behalf have planted (read cracked) seeds on other servers in order to entrap (not the legal version) users. A slightly illegal activity in most jurisdictions... |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to AVonGauss
I'm sure they are just "writing down" ip addresses. I'm sure there is no computer program that is capturing the IP address and putting it out on a report, is there?
If someone is "unfairly targeted" of being a pirate, they have a right to go after that party or parties for damages, right?
.. the reason they don't.. (do I have to say it? I think I do..) .. is BECAUSE they ARE pirating or doing something they shouldn't in the first place!
(Disclaimer: there ARE going to be rare occasions where a mistake or two is made, HOWEVER, because of that, it doesn't mean we stop enforcing the rules while letting the many/majority go scott-free. Even then, in this case, those so-called innocent are usually the owner/subscriber of the offending line, and the AUP/TOS clearly states they are responsible for the use of the line which makes them responsible,.. grandma..) |
|
AVonGaussPremium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL
2 edits | said by fiberguy:If someone is "unfairly targeted" of being a pirate, they have a right to go after that party or parties for damages, right? Probably, and I would also guess by Cox playing middle man, it would also open them up to the possibility punitive, legal and actual damages.
The point I was making is I am almost certain Cox is not validating in any way that the claim is actually true, they are only basing it on the DMCA notification. The purpose of the DCMA notification was never to circumvent the legal process or cause the provider to take action other than to pass it along to the customer - thus removing the pressure for the ISP to identify the customer based on a unsubstantiated claim.
If you believe Cox or any other provider is validating the DMCA notice claim, ask yourself this, how? In order to validate the claim, you actually need to be guilty of the same act that the other party is accusing your customer of committing. I can run a torrent all day long called IronManTheMovieHD.iso - is it the motion picture of some silly pictures from a Halloween event a few years ago?
said by fiberguy:(Disclaimer: there ARE going to be rare occasions where a mistake or two is made, HOWEVER, because of that, it doesn't mean we stop enforcing the rules while letting the many/majority go scott-free. Even then, in this case, those so-called innocent are usually the owner/subscriber of the offending line, and the AUP/TOS clearly states they are responsible for the use of the line which makes them responsible,.. grandma..) Agreed, but who elected the ISP to be the judge? A copyright holder that feels their copyright has been infringed upon has plenty of legal recourse to explore - many with substantial penalties.
Their letter is not worded as we are passing along this DMCA violation that we have received and linked to your account. For legal purposes we have recorded this incident and will, upon court order, provide legal verification that you were the operator of this link (IP address) during stated period. If the copyright holder wished to continue with legal action, they would go to the court with their cause for releasing the identifying information and if granted, then the ISP would turn it over.
That, I would have no problem with. |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by AVonGauss:said by fiberguy:If someone is "unfairly targeted" of being a pirate, they have a right to go after that party or parties for damages, right? Probably, and I would also guess by Cox playing middle man, it would also open them up to the possibility punitive, legal and actual damages. Isn't Cox covered by fair-harbor provisions?
said by AVonGauss:The point I was making is I am almost certain Cox is not validating in any way that the claim is actually true, they are only basing it on the DMCA notification. ... well, 3 notifications, according to Cox -- it's not clear whether a rebutted notification is subtracted from that number, I would hope so ...
said by AVonGauss:The purpose of the DCMA notification was never to circumvent the legal process or cause the provider to take action other than to pass it along to the customer - thus removing the pressure for the ISP to identify the customer based on a unsubstantiated claim. Right.
In fact, the ISP cannot validate the DMCA complaint WRT BitTorrent -- you're right in that respect. There is no way that it can. It must trust the accuracy of the complaint (which is usually received some time later, to boot). But does 3 distinct complaints, none of which the user refuted, make enough basis to say, "enough!?"
ISPs have the same problem with spam complaints. The ISP can't prove or disprove reports of spam. But eventually, the number of separate similar complaints tend to add credibility to one another. If an ISP was to ignore these complaints, it would be labeled a rogue, itself.
I honestly don't know what to make of this. Cox used Sandvine (like Comcast still is using). But Cox isn't known for stupid customer service (like Comcast still is known for). That's why I'd like to hear from more users that have been on the receiving end of this.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
AVonGaussPremium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL | said by funchords:Isn't Cox covered by fair-harbor provisions? Absolutely. In this context what I am contending is by taking the DCMA violation notice at face value as fact and further promoting the accusation by altering your service level based solely on the DMCA notification they could/should be also opening the door to the liability. I don't even want to comment on the part of the letter that states "we are obligated"... |
|
| reply to funchords
said by funchords:In fact, the ISP cannot validate the DMCA complaint WRT BitTorrent -- you're right in that respect. There is no way that it can. It must trust the accuracy of the complaint (which is usually received some time later, to boot). But does 3 distinct complaints, none of which the user refuted, make enough basis to say, "enough!?" Here is the issue, why does the ISP need to say 'enough'? If they comply under DMCA, then it is an issue between the user, and the complaintant, not the ISP and the user. Forwarding DMCA requests are trivial.
Now, here is my issue:
Let's say I publish something from my computer. Someone who dislikes what I have stated can make a complaint against me using DMCA as an attempt to silence my opinion.
Now, I have the option to refute the DMCA complaint. Except that the burdon is now on me to prove not only that the complaint is false, but that my response is truthful under threat of perjury (This liability does not hold to the complaintant, a VERY important fact).
I would NEVER file a rebuttal to a DMCA request without first consulting an attorney. Even if I was 100% certain that I had commited no copyright violations, I would never put pen to paper under penalty of perjury in something as complex as copyright law.
So, if I do not want to pay an attorney, my options are to let COX remove my website, or take it down myself. Either way, that complaint against me stands.
It would be trivial for 2 other complaints to be filed by a malicious person, and it would be anything but trivial for me to contest those complaints.
Thus, my opinion could be silenced easily and I would have no recourse but through expensive legal options.
The alternative, which is what COX should be doing, is once the complaint has been filed, they pass it along, and that is it. Then if the complaintant wishes to continue the legal fight, it is THEIR burdon to prove that I have commited infringement and not MY burdon to prove that their claim is false. |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by thevorpal:Here is the issue, why does the ISP need to say 'enough'? If they comply under DMCA, then it is an issue between the user, and the complainant, not the ISP and the user. Forwarding DMCA requests are trivial. . . . Thus, my opinion could be silenced easily and I would have no recourse but through expensive legal options. Okay, you've persuaded me. This is what the subpoena process is for.
It does look like the poster who wrote »Re: I like this was right about the additional liability.
There's a real-live case of DMCA abuse against Fair Use going on right now, in fact ... Obama Mashup Ad Pulled over "Copyright" Protest. NBC better hope Obama doesn't win.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
