sprewell
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Phoenix, AZ
| reply to sprewell
Re: Qwest blocking users without passing along DMCA notices
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
| reply to sprewell
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
| reply to sprewell
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
| 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
| 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. |
|
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. |
|
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! |
|
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 |
|
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. |
|
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
2 edits | 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
| 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
| 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
| 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
| 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
| 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. |
|
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. |
|
dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
1 edit | 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. |
|
mrhuggles
join:2007-03-29
Ames, IA | not being protected by the safe harbor laws by its self isnt breaking the law? what are you guys smokeing |
|
