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