how-to block ads
|
rims
join:2000-10-22
Phoenix, AZ
| reply to sprewell
Re: Qwest blocking users without passing along DMCA notices
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/ | |
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
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, | |
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! | |
No_Strings
Premium,Mod
join:2001-11-22
The OC | Concur. | |
-
|
