how-to block ads
|
sprewell
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Phoenix, AZ
| Qwest blocking users without passing along DMCA notices I just got blocked by Qwest twice in two weeks for illegally downloading, without ever being notified beforehand or telling us exactly what the file in question was. The first time they claimed that they sent an email, which of course we were unable to read because the internet was blocked, but once they unblocked us, there was no email. This time, they claimed that they sent an email the first time but couldn't guarantee that it was delivered, then backtracked and said that they don't send such emails, that they can just block people at will. I insisted that they had to tell us what we were accused of downloading and was told that "they have more lawyers than me" and that they didn't have to. Finally, someone agreed to send an email and after verifying that they unblocked us again and that the email was sent, I got off the phone with them. Turns out they had received 5 DMCA notices from NBC/Universal (twice in one day one time), all about a single episode of The Office, but had not passed along any of them. Isn't that illegal not to notify us of these DMCA notices? I talked to a friend who used to work with Qwest and he said that it was policy while he was there not to pass such notices along. Anyway, I thought potential or current customers might be interested in these probably illegal practices of Qwest, which I'm sure are another in a long list of such practices, such as when their salesperson blatantly lied to me 3 years ago about the speeds of the internet service they were selling me. | |
|  travelguy
join:1999-09-03
Santa Fe, NM
1 edit | Re: Qwest blocking users without passing along DMCA notices I'm not aware of any legal requirement to notify an infringer before shutting them down: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Cop···tion_Act
The law also requires that an ISP cut off repeat infringers and makes no provisions for any minimum time interval to be considered more than one infringement act. Since there's plenty of case law to support each unauthorized sharing to be a separate infringement, you aren't going to get very far arguing that twice in one day shouldn't be considered two events.
Sounds like you got spanked and didn't like it. | |
| | sprewell
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: Qwest blocking users without passing along DMCA notices Umm, Look at Step 5 in your link: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Cop···_example
That's the step they never did. The DMCA is well-understood and used by now, I can't help it if the morons at Qwest choose not to comply. Kinda hard to be a repeat infringer when I was never notified of my precise infringement. I only received notification after being cut off twice and insisting that they pass along the DMCA notices. I didn't argue that twice in one day shouldn't be considered two events, but now that you mention it, that is ridiculous. If NBC notified them twice in one day about the same file and they never notified me, I'm pretty sure that will not be considered two events in any court of law. Sounds like you have no idea what you're talking about and just like to mouth off: do you work for Qwest by any chance? Cuz you sound just like the woman I just talked to in your willingness to make statements while remaining wholly ignorant. | |
| | | dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
| Re: Qwest blocking users without passing along DMCA notices Your "step 5" is a theoretical example of how such an action might be played out regarding a site that hosted copyrighted material.
There's no legal requirement to notify before shutting down service in response to a DMCA complaint. Also note the Qwest TOS- you'd have been in violation of that too.
You got busted and got your hand slapped. Don't play the victim. | |
| | | | sprewell
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: Qwest blocking users without passing along DMCA notices It's not a theoretical example, it's what the law requires. Let me quote you another section of that wikipedia page:
"After the notice has been complied with the OSP must take reasonable steps to promptly notify the alleged infringer of the action.[18] Note that the OSP is not prohibited from doing so in advance, only required to do so afterward. If there is a counter notification from the alleged infringer, the OSP must respond appropriately to it."
I'm sure all this is spelled out exactly in the legalese, as it's exactly the procedure that's followed at every webhost and ISP that I've heard of. It's fascinating that Qwest acts like they have some loophole out of this law, more likely they just don't have proper policies in place and the employees I talked to are completely ignorant. I'm not playing the victim, I'm accusing Qwest of breaking the law in how they're handling these situations. Funny how you dimwits keep defending Qwest when there's much precedent and legalese to back up what I'm saying, if you'd only bother to read it before making your obtuse statements. | |
| | | | | dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
| Re: Qwest blocking users without passing along DMCA notices said by sprewell  :It's not a theoretical example, it's what the law requires. Let me quote you another section of that wikipedia page: "After the notice has been complied with the OSP must take reasonable steps to promptly notify the alleged infringer of the action.[18] Note that the OSP is not prohibited from doing so in advance, only required to do so afterward. If there is a counter notification from the alleged infringer, the OSP must respond appropriately to it." I'm sure all this is spelled out exactly in the legalese, as it's exactly the procedure that's followed at every webhost and ISP that I've heard of. It's fascinating that Qwest acts like they have some loophole out of this law, more likely they just don't have proper policies in place and the employees I talked to are completely ignorant. I'm not playing the victim, I'm accusing Qwest of breaking the law in how they're handling these situations. Funny how you dimwits keep defending Qwest when there's much precedent and legalese to back up what I'm saying, if you'd only bother to read it before making your obtuse statements. An OSP referrs to an entity hosting content, not delivering it as in an ISP. In the case of an OSP, notification need not be before service is interrupted, and doesn't have to involve forwarding the actual DCMA notification.
»www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi
Question: Must the reciever of a take-down notice notify the sender of the action it takes regarding the notice?
Answer: No. Nothing in the DMCA requires the reciever of a take-down notice to notify the sender of the action it takes regarding the notice. The DMCA only requires a service provider to notify the subscriber that the material has been removed or access to the material has been disabled, in cases where the allegedly infringing material is residing on the network controlled or operated by service provider at the discretion of the subscriber. [17 U.S.C. 512(g)(2)(A)] Rather than throwing around insults, perhaps you'd best review the law yourself before claiming to be a victim of lawbreaking.
You got busted infringing copyright and violating the Qwest Terms of Service. Deal with the consequences of your own actions and perhaps learn from them. | |
| | | | | | sprewell
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: Qwest blocking users without passing along DMCA notices In this case, the relevant OSP is the ISP, just as a content creator can give a DMCA notice to a network/data center provider who would then pass it along to the appropriate webhost who's serving the content. It's hilarious that you chose to quote that FAQ as the actual quoted question refers to whether the OSP must notify the content creator, not the infringer. However, in passing, it specifically says that the alleged infringer, "the subscriber," has to be notified of the infringement. This is so that they can file a counter-notice if necessary, I suggest you read the referenced legalese at 512g2A, as I just have. I never received any notice of infringement and was refused notice, until I kept insisting that they had to do it and they finally capitulated. In this case, it appears that my insult was valid as you keep making claims that are specious and contradicted by your own evidence. Perhaps this is a good opportunity for you to learn that you have no idea what you're talking about. | |
| | | | | | | dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
| Re: Qwest blocking users without passing along DMCA notices Fine- I quoted the wrong section. Meanwhile, you have quoted nothing to support your contention that they broke any law in suspending your account without prior notification.
If you had read the relevant statutes as you (almost certainly falsely) claim, you'd know that there is no requirement to notify the infringer in advance. I'm unaware of any specific timeframe for such notification to be made after the fact.
You got busted. Man up and take responsibility for your actions rather than whining about the consequences. You should be thankful you're not facing the prospect of an expensive lawsuit. | |
| | | | | | | | sprewell
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: Qwest blocking users without passing along DMCA notices I have provided repeated quotes and provided you with the exact section of the law, that you can easily read by following the same link from the bottom of the wikipedia page that I did. If you're too dense to do so, that's your problem, not mine. However, you keep repeating that advance notification is unnecessary, so that's presumably what you're hanging your hat on. But other than an offhand comment in my original post, I haven't even been hammering on advance notice, just any notice. In fact, in my first response to you, I specifically quoted a block of text that said advance notice was not necessary and I haven't mentioned advance notice since. It's immaterial what timeframe Qwest has for notification after the fact as they refused all notification whatsoever!
I have never once whined about the consequences because there are none. I'm pointing out Qwest's illegal behavior to others so they can avoid this shitty company. I'm not worried about any lawsuits as that will get them nowhere, just as this entire legal strategy of suing your customers has gotten them exactly nowhere. Times have changed, they need to come up with a better content strategy rather than desperately clinging to the past. It won't matter much as internet video will soon kill off NBC and their ilk. | |
| | | | | | CopperMonkey
join:2007-12-18
united state
| said by dynodb :» www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgiQuestion: Must the reciever of a take-down notice notify the sender of the action it takes regarding the notice?
Answer: No. Nothing in the DMCA requires the reciever of a take-down notice to notify the sender of the action it takes regarding the notice. The DMCA only requires a service provider to notify the subscriber that the material has been removed or access to the material has been disabled, in cases where the allegedly infringing material is residing on the network controlled or operated by service provider at the discretion of the subscriber. [17 U.S.C. 512(g)(2)(A)] I think this is all anyone needs to know. Qwest doesn't have notify you of anything. I hate copyright laws as much as the next person, but I'm not going to slander a company over enforcing them, regardless of if they actually notify me or not. | |
| | | | | | | sprewell
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: Qwest blocking users without passing along DMCA notices Jeez, do you guys understand english? Let me quote you the relevant portion of that FAQ that you decided to quote to me again. "The DMCA only requires a service provider to notify the subscriber that the material has been removed or access to the material has been disabled." I received no such notification, before, after or whenever, until I insisted that they had to notify me and broke through their stonewalling, although they still insisted they didn't have to. If you actually look at the section of the DMCA referenced, the reason they have to tell me what the supposedly infringing file is so that I have a chance to file a counternotice if it's not infringing. The first part of the chillingeffects FAQ refers to the content creator: Qwest doesn't have to notify NBC of what they did. They do have to notify me, the subscriber. | |
| | | | | | | | CopperMonkey
join:2007-12-18
united state
| Re: Qwest blocking users without passing along DMCA notices said by sprewell :I received no such notification, before, after or whenever, until I insisted that they had to notify me and broke through their stonewalling, although they still insisted they didn't have to. You still don't understand what the quoted part means. They are required to notify you that they cut you off, but they DO NOT have to notify you why they are doing it or what file they suspect you downloaded. | |
| | | | | | | | | sprewell
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: Qwest blocking users without passing along DMCA notices No, you don't understand that that FAQ is incomplete, as it leaves unclear if the material has to be named, which is why I also said you guys should read the referenced section of the law. Funny how you go from saying they don't have to notify me of anything to incorrectly claiming they just don't have to name the file. However, if you actually read the relevant section of the DMCA or had any knowledge whatsoever of the loads of cases that have been written up ad nauseum in the press, they are absolutely required to notify me of what the infringing file is, as that's the whole point. I'm supposed to be able to file a counternotice for the infringing file if I claim it's non-infringing, in which case they're supposed to put it back up within a certain timeframe, given certain conditions. Please read the the relevant sections of the DMCA and stop talking out of your ass, it took me 2 mins. You guys've brought your intellectual knives to a gunfight, with how dumb your arguments are. | |
| | | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
 ·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by sprewell :Umm, Look at Step 5 in your link: » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Cop···_exampleThat's the step they never did. The DMCA is well-understood and used by now, I can't help it if the morons at Qwest choose not to comply. Just throwing in my 2¢: If you think Qwest has violated the law, wouldn't it be more productive to hire an attorney, and seek legal sanctions, than to engage in a fruitless online debate?
Why not do just that (hire an attorney), then post back your results.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
| 
RockyBB
Premium
join:2005-01-31
Longmont, CO
| hey, I'm just a caveman. how did all this get started? prior to someone deciding if they did or didn't need to notify you, did you download copyrighted material without the permission of and without compensation to the copyright owner? yes or no. I'm not making any value judgments, I just don't understand how of all their millions of customers, somebody fingered you. | |
| | sprewell
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: Qwest blocking users without passing along DMCA notices Umm, customers don't finger people, NBC fingers people. NBC must be monitoring peer-to-peer networks and they claim that I was infringing, so they sent several DMCA notices to Qwest saying so. Qwest didn't pass along any of this information and blocked me twice. At first they claimed they sent the info, then claimed they couldn't be held responsible if it wasn't delivered, then said they do not send the info, then sent the info while still claiming they didn't have to. However, according to the same law which NBC is using, Qwest has to notify me of exactly what the allegedly infringing files are, at some point. Qwest, or at least their idiot representative that I talked to on the phone, is however claiming that they do not have to do so and it appears to be their company policy from what I can tell. Needless to say, potential or Qwest current customers would be interested to know that Qwest pulls such gestapo tactics of blocking your internet with no notice whatsoever, only to claim they don't have to follow the law. | |
| | |
RockyBB
Premium
join:2005-01-31
Longmont, CO
| Re: Qwest blocking users without passing along DMCA notices said by sprewell : they claim that I was infringing Was NBC correct that you were infringing? | |
| | | | sprewell
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: Qwest blocking users without passing along DMCA notices That's irrelevant, I thought you didn't want to make any "value judgments" and just wanted to figure out how we got fingered? There are 5 people living in this house and using 3 different computers, who knows what's going on at any given time. What's ridiculous is that Qwest then expects us to figure that out without ever naming what the actual infringement was. | |
| | | | |
RockyBB
Premium
join:2005-01-31
Longmont, CO
| Re: Qwest blocking users without passing along DMCA notices said by sprewell : and just wanted to figure out how we got fingered? that's right. got to do this step by step. you said there are 5 people living in your house. let's start with you. did you yourself download something that triggered all the activity? | |
| | | | | 
adsldude
always learning
Premium,Ex-Mod 2003-9
join:2000-11-10
Colorado
| said by sprewell :That's irrelevant, I thought you didn't want to make any "value judgments" and just wanted to figure out how we got fingered? There are 5 people living in this house and using 3 different computers, who knows what's going on at any given time. What's ridiculous is that Qwest then expects us to figure that out without ever naming what the actual infringement was. I agree that if an upstream provider takes action on a user then the user should be told why the action was taken especially if the TOS was violated. I also believe that all parties need to be responsible for their actions including the end users.
If you have 5 people using the same connection then you have to have "house rules" and all users should be aware of, and abide by, the service provider's TOS. If the group doesn't have the skills or desire to adhere to "house rules" and violates the TOS of the upstream provider then this is the result.
You most likely got fingered by IP address for whatever TOS violation occurred. An IP address is easily traceable to the end user if direct connections are made. The only way to avoid direct connections is to use a 3rd party proxy service. BTW, a 3rd party proxy service will have a TOS too. | |
| questionable
join:2005-10-18
Phoenix, AZ
·Qwest.net
| said by sprewell :Turns out they had received 5 DMCA notices from NBC/Universal (twice in one day one time), all about a single episode of The Office, but had not passed along any of them. Isn't that illegal not to notify us of these DMCA notices? didn't you actually say you know what the infringement was about. Might have taken some time but now you know. Who watches "The Office" I would assume that is who did it. | |
| | mrhuggles
join:2007-03-29
Ames, IA
·Qwest.net
| Re: Qwest blocking users without passing along DMCA notices the only thing i see questionable about it is that they didn't wait until there was some kind of conformation that copyrights were being violated, unless qwest is an arm of NBC and acting in their own best interests, i do not see why they should act so heavy handed against people that for all they know might be completely innocent | |
| | | sprewell
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: Qwest blocking users without passing along DMCA notices RockyBB, what exactly are you trying to figure out step by step and why? Triggered all the activity? I don't think you understand how this stuff works: it's not like if I go to hulu.com and view an Office ep, my computer then automatically kicks into high gear and starts stealing Office eps online. It's not like Tivo on crack.
adsldude, finally someone who acknowledges the obvious, that it's just stupid for Qwest to not say what the infringing file is, not to mention illegal. As for the rest of your comment, that's all obvious stuff that I'm well aware of and is neither here nor there. You can't figure out what the problem is if Qwest won't tell you precisely what happened.
questionable, the only reason I now know what the alleged infringement is is because I insisted on them telling me, as I've said repeatedly. However, even when they finally gave me that info, after a fair amount of arguing, they insisted that they didn't have to but would do it anyway in this one instance. It is immaterial to this thread who watches The Office; obviously now that I know what the alleged infringement is, we can look into it.
mrhuggles, yeah, it's weird that they immediately shut you off. Other ISPs will often forward the notices and ask you to take care of it first, not just shut you off right away with no notice. Qwest is separate from NBC so that's not the issue. They do have to take action at some point because it's the law but they are being too heavy-handed and are actually not following the law when it comes to their subscribers.
My whole point is that it's ridiculous for Qwest to allege infringement and not say what the file is. I seed torrents for open source software, for all I know they just don't like my using bandwidth in that perfectly legal manner when they don't say what the alleged infringement is. It's ironic that previous commenters quoted that chilling effects FAQ in support of Qwest as I suspect that's exactly what Qwest is trying to do here. By alleging infringement without stating what it is, they're hoping that ignorant customers will just cut back on everything, even potentially completely legal downloads, in the hopes of getting Qwest off their back. Unfortunately for Qwest, by not notifying its customers, they're actually breaking the same law that NBC is using to track down supposed infringers, the DMCA. | |
| 
no_one
@qwest.net
| Qwest does not care what you download. They do no investigation.
In this case you said "Turns out they had received 5 DMCA notices from NBC/Universal ". That is who cares what you are doing with the dsl.
Qwest is just along for the ride on this. They got lots of letters so bam.
Maybe if you are really lucky a lawyer will send you a letter directly who works contract for NBC/universal asking for large sums of money to settle. | |
|
no_one
@qwest.net
| Qwest for the most part lets you use bandwidth. On that it is a three strikes policy. Two warnings then third off. If you never got a warning on bandwidth then that is not an issue. If qwest cared about your bandwidth usage they would let you know without playing games.
Some months I use nothing other way way much.
So all this is NBC/Universal thinks they caught you doing something. You said had to do with the Office.
Can you just tell Qwest the computers are clean and get turned back on? Do not say more than needed. Qwest will not enforce anything but the connection. But if you say too much may or may not get back to NBC. Just caution play dumb.
Qwest does not care how you use your connection until someone complains to them.
If you have other users or open wifi in the house and a dsl connection is in your name be careful. Next you know cops will say you download child porn. Sure you could prove it was not you but trust me it would not be fun. | |
|
no_one
@qwest.net | If all they cared was bandwidth would have told you that. Some months I use nothing some way way much. They give two notices then third you are out. They do not play games with copyrights to boot high users. High use is I believe still fairly high. | |
| sprewell
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Phoenix, AZ
| If Qwest doesn't care what I download, why keep the alleged infringement from customers, even if it's illegal to do so? I can only speculate that they want to discourage usage. Obviously it's NBC driving this though, I never said Qwest initiated it. However, Qwest is obviously not following the right procedure as laid out in the law, and one has to wonder why, when this is all obvious stuff that's been around forever. As I said before, I'm not worried about NBC coming after me as it will get them nowhere. Yes, Qwest has let me use bandwidth so far for the most part, I agree with you there, though I speculate that the constant dynamic IP changes are done to dissuade usage. My independent VoIP from Gizmo5 was unusable when I first hooked up to Qwest as it seemed to trigger constant resets, not sure what was going on there. Qwest has already turned service back on, as I've noted previously, so that's not the issue. | |
| | mrhuggles
join:2007-03-29
Ames, IA | Re: Qwest blocking users without passing along DMCA notices as far as the law is concerned they *should* probably only give out your information to anyone with a court order right? | |
| | | sprewell
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: Qwest blocking users without passing along DMCA notices Yeah, Qwest didn't give my info to NBC as far as I know, I think they only need to if there's repeated infringement. But just in case you're not clear, my issue is that they wouldn't tell me what the alleged infringement was, even though they were required to by law, until I badgered them for it. | |
| | | | mrhuggles
join:2007-03-29
Ames, IA
·Qwest.net
| Re: Qwest blocking users without passing along DMCA notices are you sure they are required to by law? as far as i knew they wernt required by law to forward the DMCA notices to you, they could either do so, or ignore them
acting on them without notifying you? thats just dumb, but is it really against the law? | |
| | | | | sprewell
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: Qwest blocking users without passing along DMCA notices Please read the thread, we've already been over all this. They're required to promptly send me a notice of what the infringing material is so that I can file a counternotice if necessary. The DMCA notice from NBC essentially consists of cut-n-paste of the DMCA law, the name of the file, their address, and the timestamps. They don't have to pass the exact DMCA notice along but they do have to name the file in question, that's the law. Of course, the timestamps would be useful too, to figure out what exactly happened. In my case, after some arguing, they finally just forwarded the original DMCA notices. All I was asking for was the name of the file, which it turns out they were legally required to pass along even though they claimed they didn't have to. If this is just some rogue employee at Qwest, I understand, this shit happens, though they should have better training. However, this appears to be a calculated policy on their part. | |
| | | | | | mrhuggles
join:2007-03-29
Ames, IA
·Qwest.net
| Re: Qwest blocking users without passing along DMCA notices sigh i think you miss my point, all that stuff isn't LAWS its only laws if they follow the rules, if they do not follow the rules they are not protected! [or at least is my limited understanding. thats why i use terms like questionable and i am not sure etc] | |
| | | | | | | sprewell
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Phoenix, AZ | Re: Qwest blocking users without passing along DMCA notices Not sure what you mean by "its only laws if they follow the rules, if they do not follow the rules they are not protected." The law is all written down and explicit, I suggest you follow the links and references above if you're really interested. | |
| | | | | | | | dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
| Re: Qwest blocking users without passing along DMCA notices said by sprewell :Not sure what you mean by "its only laws if they follow the rules, if they do not follow the rules they are not protected." The law is all written down and explicit, I suggest you follow the links and references above if you're really interested. If it's so explicit- quote it for us.
Not a vague wikipedia article.
Not a section that doesn't apply to ISPs.
Not a what you think the law might be.
Spell it out for us exactly what law is being broken. If you're going to accuse an entity of breaking the law, tell us which aspect of which law. | |
| | | | | | | | 
AthlGrond
Premium,MVM
join:2002-04-25
Aurora, CO
 ·Comcast
| I don't see anything in any of the links that indicate that the ISP is obliged to send you notice, except when they don't want to cut off your service.
That is to say there is an implication in most of the linked material that the ISP would want to keep you as a customer and would therefore want to give you chances to rectify any errors on your end or to establish that errors were made on the copyright holder's end.
Based on what I've seen, Qwest is taking the "we don't care about you as a customer" route here. Which (as someone further up said) is them being stupid, but I think the law allows for them to be stupid.
I hope you have another broadband option where you live (I would assume you would not want Qwest anymore).
--
I'm not a tax dodger, I'm a potential cabinet appointee! | |
| questionable
join:2005-10-18
Phoenix, AZ | And if they truly did break that law you can in turn sue them. You might not get anywhere except maybe on KPHO or one of the other stations in your area. Heck maybe even national | |
|
no_one
@qwest.net
| How does dynamic IP affect your bandwidth usage? Yes if running servers there are ways around a dynamic IP. Same for most everything else. I use VOIP etc. and have no problems. If your IP is switching that rapidly maybe there is a connection problem.
However, up to I believe a very generous amount of bandwidth Qwest does not care. Please don't quote the normal user amounts it is well above that. | |
| sprewell
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Phoenix, AZ
| dynodb, OSP is a catch-all term that applies to all service providers, as I've explained previously, with each link in the chain passing the DMCA notice along to the relevant original party. I have already spelled out exactly what the law is and how and why it was broken. If you're too dumb to follow the thread so far, I'm not going to waste 10-15 mins of my time cutting and pasting and explaining the law for you, when you can spend the same 2 mins I did to go read it.
questionable, I doubt I'd get much out of suing them for these two instances. The real opportunity might be a class-action suit if one finds multiple customers who have been wronged by a pervasive policy but I'm uninterested in pursuing that myself.
AthlGrond, It's in the quotes above and the links, not sure why you don't understand that notice is required by the law. It's not Qwest being stupid, it's Qwest breaking the law. As I said before though, it's always possible this is an isolated instance by a rogue employee, but the other former employee saying it was a policy suggests otherwise. Of course, there's another broadband option available; if only there were a lot more, if Qwest and the cable company hadn't paid off the govt to avoid local loop unbundling.
no_one, the constantly changing dynamic IP will sometimes cause my p2p clients to not be able to access the internet without a manual reset. I can only speculate that that is the only reason for the constantly changing IP, as most people will probably not bother with the daily manual resets that I put up with. When I first started using Qwest's DSL service and tried to use Gizmo5 VoIP, it would trigger a flurry of resets somehow. However, that went away months later, not sure why it was happening. I agree that Qwest has not hassled me about bandwidth, as I stated earlier. However, I can only speculate that these constant mild hiccups, caused by what should be easy to handle network problems, are done intentionally to discourage usage. | |
| rims
join:2000-10-22
Phoenix, AZ
| The chilling link says an isp has to notify a subscriber per section 512(i)(1)(A) of the code. That section is concerned not with what is required by law from the ISP, but what is required from the ISP if they want to benefit from Safe Harbor provisions, ie to not get sued by NBC. At least that's what it seems to say to me
(i) Conditions for Eligibility.—
(1) Accommodation of technology.— The limitations on liability established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if the service provider—
(A) has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network who are repeat infringers; and
(B) accommodates and does not interfere with standard technical measures.
»www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/512.html | |
| sprewell
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Phoenix, AZ | There is no reference anywhere in this thread to 512(i)(1)(A), the only section that the chillingeffects FAQ and I referenced is the relevant one at 512(g)(2)(A). | |
| rims
join:2000-10-22
Phoenix, AZ | That section also seems to imply only that the ISP is automatically free from liability if they notify you. Not that they by law must notify you | |
| sprewell
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Phoenix, AZ
| Yes, that's what free from liability means, that nothing illegal was done. Just as they have to comply with the DMCA notices that NBC sends out to be free from liability, or legal action can be taken against them, they have to notify me of the alleged infringement to be free from liability. | |
| rims
join:2000-10-22
Phoenix, AZ
| Hey, we are almost agreeing. However, not notifying you doesnt make them neccesarily liable, or guilty of some illegality. It just makes them not absolutely unliable, because now they dont have a "get out of liabilty even if we shut down the wrong guy card" to play in the event they screwed up. | |
| sprewell
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Phoenix, AZ
| I'm not sure you understand the concept of liability. If they don't follow the law, legal action can be taken against them. It doesn't matter if they got the wrong guy or the right guy, they have to follow the procedures laid out in the law because it's not up to them to decide that. Finally, not notifying me does make them liable, contrary to what you say, particularly when they refused to notify me what the infringing file when asked several times. If one finds a pattern of them repeatedly not telling alleged infringers what the actual file is, I'm sure someone can initiate some sort of legal action against them. Whether it requires us to sue them or the govt can go after them, I don't know and am uninterested in pursuing. | |
| |
AthlGrond
Premium,MVM
join:2002-04-25
Aurora, CO
·Comcast
| Re: Qwest blocking users without passing along DMCA notices Since Qwest has the right to decide who gets to use their internet service, and doesn't need a reason to cut someone off, I don't see how you would have much a case.
If you were being sued by the copyright holder you could of course challenge the information of your violation in court to establish your innocence.
However establishing your innocence with Qwest would not prevent them from cutting you off.
--
I'm not a tax dodger, I'm a potential cabinet appointee! | |
| | | sprewell
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: Qwest blocking users without passing along DMCA notices All this would matter if we were talking about Qwest's right to cut me off or whether the file was actually infringing, we're not. Please read the thread, we're talking about their right to allege infringement but withhold the name of the file in question. | |
| | | |
AthlGrond
Premium,MVM
join:2002-04-25
Aurora, CO
·Comcast
| Re: Qwest blocking users without passing along DMCA notices said by sprewell :All this would matter if we were talking about Qwest's right to cut me off or whether the file was actually infringing, we're not. Please read the thread, we're talking about their right to allege infringement but withhold the name of the file in question. OK that certainly doesn't match what I read before.
What I read that you wrote was that NBC/Universal said that you infringed, that Qwest didn't tell you, and that the not telling you was illegal.
So let me see if I have it right now:
1) Qwest is alleging to you that you infringed a copyright by sharing copyrighted material via your DSL connection
2) Qwest is withholding the name of the file mentioned in #1
3) Qwest not telling you the name of the file from #1 is illegal and actionable
Do I have it right now?
--
I'm not a tax dodger, I'm a potential cabinet appointee! | |
|
no_one
@qwest.net
| Qwest with massive budget cuts and layoff already would probably just prefer not havive to deal with this type of stuff. It does not generate revenue and probably is low priority. Just enough to keep DMCA and copyright people happy.
Do not feel like rereading everything but I thought you said the dsl was back on. So now what is the problem.
You put dsl in your name. You let roommates use it freely. Not your responsibility to check anything. Just argue after something happens.
Still say when something like child porn shows up from say an open wifi or a friend of a friend of a friend using a computer you will have lots of fun. | |
| azzonie
join:2004-04-13
Phoenix, AZ
| This thread reminds me of the guy that invented the iPone crack complaining that people are downloading it and not paying for it.
Broke the law and now complains about someone else breaking the law. Some just got sued for over 1 million dollars for downloading 24 mp3s. You got off easy. Learn to take responsibility for your illegal activity and move on. As if Qwest also being at fault makes your case any stronger. | |
| sprewell
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Phoenix, AZ
| no_one, doesn't much matter what Qwest wants to deal with; it's the law and it's simple to automatically forward the DMCA notices to allegedly infringing customers. I've always focused on notification, not the DSL blocking, so not sure why you bring that up again.
AthlGrond, I have no idea how it doesn't match what you read before when you finally got it exactly right, except that they did finally divulge the name of the file while insisting they didn't have to.
NormanS, as I said previously, I'm uninterested in pursuing this legally myself. Perhaps you think this is just a fruitless online debate but try googling for "qwest dmca" or "qwest dmca notice" and you'll see that this thread is now on the front page for those search results. That's how the internet works, with a couple keywords in google anyone can find others with common interests. Maybe this will lead to other customers posting the same experience here and a class-action lawsuit. Maybe this thread will be completely forgotten and nothing will happen. Maybe Qwest will pay attention and put the proper policies in place. We shall see.
azzonie, comparing our supposed fault to Qwest's apparent policy makes no sense. We get NBC here and could have watched or taped The Office anytime. If Qwest has a policy in place that is leading to thousands of alleged infringers not being properly notified according to the law, obviously that's a much bigger deal. | |
| | azzonie
join:2004-04-13
Phoenix, AZ
2 edits | Re: Qwest blocking users without passing along DMCA notices It is more likely that you downloaded the show with something like Limewire and you was sharing it with the world. If you had ripped it then Qwest would have to have a way to scan your hard drive. That is not what happened. You downloaded it, you got caught and now you are complaining. Enough of the maybes and what ifs. Man up and take responsibility for your actions and be happy they did not sue you rather then trying to refocus the blame on Qwest. That is a tactic a child uses, or someone that is very immature.
One thing we know for sure, your action was illegal, Qwests was not. They can cut you off anytime. In this case they had been notified by a very large company one of their was breaking the law. Why would Qwest risk getting into trouble after recieving such a notice.
»www.qwest.com/legal/ | |
| | | sprewell
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: Qwest blocking users without passing along DMCA notices I would never use a shit Java program like Limewire. I never said I "ripped" it nor is it illegal to tape a show, that's my point. Qwest's actions were clearly illegal as I have already demonstrated. I have never harped on the blocking, only the illegal non-notification, clearly you're too dumb to understand that. If Qwest didn't want to risk trouble, they would follow the entire DMCA law, rather than just the part about working with content creators. | |
| | | | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: Qwest blocking users without passing along DMCA notices said by sprewell :Qwest's actions were clearly illegal as I have already demonstrated. The only way to definitively prove that Qwest acted illegally is to haul them into court, and get a judgment against them. Otherwise, it is just another massive online debate between barroom barristers.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
| | | | | sprewell
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: Qwest blocking users without passing along DMCA notices NormanS, not necessarily, the DMCA's been around for more than a decade, there's probably case law around that says what they did is illegal. If you'd like to be more than a messageboard barrister, feel free to look it up. I don't much care to myself, I'm satisfied. | |
| | | | | | NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: Qwest blocking users without passing along DMCA notices said by sprewell :NormanS, not necessarily, the DMCA's been around for more than a decade, there's probably case law around that says what they did is illegal. If you'd like to be more than a messageboard barrister, feel free to look it up. I don't much care to myself, I'm satisfied. You may be satisfied that you are right (Qwest acted illegally). I, on the other hand, in the absence of either case law, or an actual judgment, can only consider your claim to be potential libel.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
| 
Bacon409
join:2006-07-16
Pocatello, ID
| Really, Qwest, as a private business, can choose to just shut you off for any reason they choose. And you can choose to go elsewhere with your business. That's kind of a catch-all with this. You're mad because they shut you off without telling you why, and only after going through a considerable hassle did they inform you of the reason. Your anger is understandable, I just don't know about the "Qwest acted illegally" thing. They have the right to pull you off of their network for whatever reason, and you have the right to get angry and leave them for another provider. | |
| | | (topic locked) | |
|
