No_Strings
Premium,Mod
join:2001-11-22
The OC | reply to AthlGrond
Re: Qwest blocking users without passing along DMCA notices
Concur. |
|
AthlGrond
Premium,MVM
join:2002-04-25
Aurora, CO
 ·Comcast
| reply to sprewell
said by sprewell  :you're clearly too dense to be taking part in this discussion. Considering that the majority of the posters in this thread have already come to the same conclusion the the person you insulted, I'd say either he isn't the one being dense, or your conclusions are highly questionable. (Or possibly both.)
In either event when the discussion diverts into argumentum ad hominem I'm through bothering to following it.
--
I'm not a tax dodger, I'm a potential cabinet appointee! |
|
rims
join:2000-10-22
Phoenix, AZ
| reply to sprewell
Hey, we almost agree again....This is rife for abuse, because the DMCA laws appear to put the end user in a pretty weak position. From the ISP's point of view the risk of shutting you down is less than leaving you up. And if they messed up and didnt see the notice from NBC (and neglected to send you a letter, and neglected to shut you off) then they got some more notices from NBC, I can see why they just shut you off, and said screw to the letter.
Does this mean they are liable to you? Maybe they are, maybe they arent, depends on the circumstance. And i bet if the circumstance is you were lifting a crapload of copyright material, you wouldnt have a leg to stand on.
The Miranda analogy doesnt fly, |
|
sprewell
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Phoenix, AZ
| reply to sprewell
dynodb, if you don't understand the clear provisions of the DMCA notice and counternotice provisions, you're clearly too dense to be taking part in this discussion. Funny how you keep claiming that you've read the law, and madly claiming that I haven't read it, when you keep making such unfounded claims. I'm uninterested in wasting my time copy-n-pasting the same text for you when you claim you already read it, clearly your grasp of the English language is sufficiently weak that it would be lost on you again. I don't download songs, I don't even listen to music. That's not even the claim anyway: I've got news for you, The Office isn't a song.  Anyway, the endgame for digital music is free distribution, mp3s will just be marketing for musicians making money solely off of paid concerts and video licensing.
mrhuggles, not sure what you're trying to say but I presume you're saying that Qwest isn't liable unless it turns out NBC is wrong? That's like saying it's okay for a cop not to read a suspect his Miranda rights ("You have the right to remain silent...") as long as it turns out he was guilty. That legal theory would be laughed out of court, I suspect the same in this DMCA situation.
rims, yes, I think they should pass the DMCA notice along to the user first, as ISPs have been doing for a decade now. If there are more notices afterwards, they can always take action. I don't think they have to worry about liability from NBC as the law is vague as to what remedies they need to take for NBC and passing notices along first is what ISPs have been doing for a long time. Even if they shut you down right away, they do have to notify you of the filename at some point, even if it's only after you call to get hooked back up again. However, they seem to be following the Cox route instead, of just shutting everybody down right away. This is rife for abuse: I can send 5 DMCA notices to Qwest saying that you are stealing my songs, or for some Cox customer too, and they would presumably shut your internet down, even if it's not true. |
|
rims
join:2000-10-22
Phoenix, AZ
| reply to sprewell
Just a thought...
Say Qwest gets a take down notice. To reduce their liability they need to "respond expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity. "
So let's say they get 5 notices in one day for the same user. As a practical matter should they send you an email to satifsy 512(g)2 and eliminate risk of liability from you? Or shut you down immediately to eliminate the much bigger liablity from NBC? (but now they cant send you the standard email)
It looks like Cox deals with that a 3rd way:
»torrentfreak.com/cox-disconnects···-080930/ |
|
mrhuggles
join:2007-03-29
Ames, IA | reply to dynodb
Re: Qwest blocking users without passing along DMCA notices
not being protected by the safe harbor laws by its self isnt breaking the law? what are you guys smokeing |
|
dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
1 edit | reply to sprewell
said by sprewell :NormanS, haha, you clearly have not read the referenced law to make such a claim. Neither have you.
There's nothing in the law that requires a service provider to notify a user of exactly what file was exchanged before (or after) disabling service. Repeated requests for you to quote the relevant text of the statute (which I've read, and you haven't) have been met with complete avoidance on your part.
Give it up- you got busted. Qwest didn't break the law, you did, and you know it. Next time pay the $.99 for the song, and be glad you haven't been sued for copyright infringement. |
|
sprewell
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Phoenix, AZ
| reply to sprewell
NormanS, haha, you clearly have not read the referenced law to make such a claim.
Bacon409, I have never argued that Qwest can't kick me off their network, I'm sure their ToS is sufficiently one-sided to allow them all kinds of power. However, the DMCA is US law, they cannot write a ToS that contradicts the law. So they can kick me off or do whatever they want as long as it isn't forbidden in the DMCA, but they do have to send me a notice of the filename or they would have refused it illegally. |
|
Bacon409
join:2006-07-16
Pocatello, ID
| reply to sprewell
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. |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
 ·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to sprewell
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 |
|
sprewell
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Phoenix, AZ
| reply to NormanS
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
| reply to sprewell
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
| reply to azzonie
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. |
|
azzonie
join:2004-04-13
Phoenix, AZ
2 edits | reply to sprewell
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
| reply to sprewell
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
| reply to sprewell
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. |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to sprewell
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 |
|
AthlGrond
Premium,MVM
join:2002-04-25
Aurora, CO
·Comcast
| reply to sprewell
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
| reply to sprewell
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. |
|
