sprewell
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Phoenix, AZ
| reply to dynodb
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
| 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
| 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
| 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
| 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
| reply to dynodb
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
| 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
| 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
| 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. |
|
