openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | reply to EUS
Re: Shame on the ISP's Shame on them for extending multiple warnings for alleged infringing actions and in the end maybe doing nothing much at all about it? The horror..... You should be much more concerned with your acknowledgment of infringing actions after the third and fourth warning that the copyright holders will most likely use against you in legal action. |
|
| very true. If you get three and four notices; you are in deed knowingly doing illegal activities online. |
|
 firephotoFacts hurtPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA | said by hottboiinnc:very true. If you get three and four notices; you are in deed knowingly doing illegal activities online.
Right because the letter I could just send to your ISP concerning your activity associated with my copyrighted work is totally legit.
--
Say no to JAMS! |
|
| once notice maybe....3 and 4?? com'on. there is NO way 3 and 4 notices are going to be fake. |
|
| reply to firephoto
said by firephoto:said by hottboiinnc:very true. If you get three and four notices; you are in deed knowingly doing illegal activities online.
Right because the letter I could just send to your ISP concerning your activity associated with my copyrighted work is totally legit. and because the ISP's check to make sure the so called "movie" was actually downloaded. i.e. 4GB "movie" but user only used 400MB's that day.
because we know their record of never ever ever making an error is so high right?  |
|
| ISPs don't check to see what was downloaded only because we'd have people on here claiming its in violation of their rights and the Network owners have no right to be able to do that. So you can't have your cake and eat it to.
Maybe they should just refuse to service you with one notice? Sounds fair to me. |
|
| said by hottboiinnc:ISPs don't check to see what was downloaded only because we'd have people on here claiming its in violation of their rights and the Network owners have no right to be able to do that. So you can't have your cake and eat it to.
Maybe they should just refuse to service you with one notice? Sounds fair to me.
i never said to verify the CONTENT, but if the MPAA says i suposadly downloaded a freakin movie on X day, but i used all of 1GB the ENTIRE week. its obvious there full of it. and the DMCA is eronious. so i should be punished for their lack of verification? i dont think so.
for the record, i do not do illegal file sharing. (i DO use bittorrent for LEGAL content, i.e. linux distro's once or twice every few months)
as to that one notice remark, fine by me, if they pay each person falsely accused say $10k for the slander/liable aspects of falsely accusing them of a crime alone. |
|
|
|
| reply to hottboiinnc
said by hottboiinnc:Maybe they should just refuse to service you with one notice? Sounds fair to me.
Yes. Chances are his malicious kids are up to no good if he stoped infringing and STILL got notices. They shouldn't discriminate and just disconnect the whole family at that point.
They deserve it for their criminal activities.
It's not like they use the internet for any other useful activities anyway (like real education, we got schools for that) Besides, the MPAA and RIAA will educate them far more than a wikipedia ever will, at least in matters of copyright.
I mean, it'd just be like a time machine. Who didn't like the 80's?
I liked them a lot. Back then Copyright was broken in a much smaller scale, this law will bring the 80's back, it's a win for the MPAA, RIAA and fans of the 80's. A win/win as they say.
We would really just be much better off if ISP's handed over control of who is worthy enough to use the internet and who isn't.
I'd trust someone like that to make very good judgements on who deserves the service and who doesn't.
And before people get all defensive on me. You have to remmember, the sole reason people use the internet is to watch videos and music, nothing more.
It has no educational value, and sharing files with people isn't all that important, so the top 200 sites should be enough for people like that. (everyone, except those pirates of course)
Or better yet... they should just go ahead and just allow only the top 200 sites for EVERYONE. that way there would be no risk what so ever of copyright being infringed on.
What do you guys think?
And if they still managed somehow to download a pirated picture, book, moving picture or sound. well, they could still go ahead and just disconect them altogether like planned.
As i said... the internet is not an important tool outside of watching movies and listening to music, so it wouldn't be too much of a loss to those pirates, i'd say it would be letting them off the hook easy if you ask me.
I can think of much better ways of dealing with them, but i won't get into that right now. |
|
 r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
 ·row44
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9:Shame on them for extending multiple warnings for alleged infringing actions and in the end maybe doing nothing much at all about it? The horror..... You should be much more concerned with your acknowledgment of infringing actions after the third and fourth warning that the copyright holders will most likely use against you in legal action.
Customer's are not paying for ISPs to record the IP address we use, we are not paying them to use people to foward letters, we are not paying them to implement hearsay sanctions.
ISPs need to stick to what the customers are paying for.
If only they were not monopolies.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr. |
|
 GbcueP.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8 | reply to hottboiinnc
said by hottboiinnc:Maybe they should just refuse to service you with one notice? Sounds fair to me. What would the ISP shareholders think when the company they invested in knowingly disconnects a profit stream?
--
My Blog 2.2 |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | reply to r81984
So basically, you have no idea what you're actually paying your ISP for. You may not want to pay for those things, but in reality you are. |
|
 EUSKill cancerPremium
join:2002-09-10
canada
 ·voip.ms
| reply to openbox9
Shame as it's none of their business.
Another system of policing is the last thing I want, or require, or want my monthly bill go up for 'anti-theft charge'.
--
~ Project Hope ~ ..-. ..- -.-. -.- / .... .- .-. .--. . .-. |
|
r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX Reviews:
·row44
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9:So basically, you have no idea what you're actually paying your ISP for. You may not want to pay for those things, but in reality you are.
What I pay for and what I get are two different things as I have no choice or providers. My ISP can do whatever it wants to regardless of what I am paying for.
If I had a choice I could leave them for a company that only gives me what I want to pay for.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr. |
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
·Vitelity VOIP
| reply to r81984
said by r81984:Customer's are not paying for ISPs to record the IP address we use, we are not paying them to use people to foward letters, we are not paying them to implement hearsay sanctions. »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Mi···ight_Act
ISPs lose their protection from prosecution for dissemination of copyright material if they don't actively participate in passing on notices from the copyright holders. |
|
r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX Reviews:
·row44
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by espaeth:said by r81984:Customer's are not paying for ISPs to record the IP address we use, we are not paying them to use people to foward letters, we are not paying them to implement hearsay sanctions. » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Mi···ight_ActISPs lose their protection from prosecution for dissemination of copyright material if they don't actively participate in passing on notices from the copyright holders. An ISP don't need any protection. That line is an excuse that has no backing.
An ISP that provides internet service to the public and is not a private network. A business would be responsible for what goes on their private network. A public ISP like comcast, ATT, verizon, etc are not responsible for anything that customers do on the internet no more than ATT is responsible if someone commits a crime over the telephone or a cell phone.
If there was any way an ISP could be sued then all phone providers would also be sued anytime something illegal happened over a phone call. Really, that is a fake excuse and they wrote that into the law knowing that.
The major grey area that may get protection from that line would be schools like a major university with dorms. They are not really a public ISP, but can be considered a private network. Public ISPs do not need to worry.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr. |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Vitelity VOIP
| Read the bill.
There is a reason they pushed through the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act that sets up provisions for Online Service Providers to have provisional safe harbor status if they adhere to certain criteria in dealing with DMCA violations.
They're not mailing out letters just because they wanted to spend money sucking up to copyright holders -- they're spending the money because they want safe harbor status to be exempt from prosecution for the actions of their subscribers.
The cost of setting up a department to deal with mailing notices and getting a "get out of jail free" card is far lower than the costs would be of taking a case to court for non-compliance. |
|
r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX Reviews:
·row44
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
| Your linked information seems more to apply to sites or data hosted by an ISP.
What you linked to definately does not apply to public ISPs as they do not host any content and they lease an IP address to the customer.
If they tried to argue that the offending IP address goes through their network than any backbone or network the data traverses would also be responsible, which makes no sense. Then as I said before anyone that has any illegal activity over their network like phone companies would also be liable.
Your own link states "the federal Communications Decency Act (CDA) still protects the ISP from liability for content provided by third parties"
said by your link :
§ 512. Limitations on liability relating to material online
(a) Transitory Digital Network Communications.— A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider’s transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, or by reason of the intermediate and transient storage of that material in the course of such transmitting, routing, or providing connections
Section (j) relates to if they have a court order for the ISP.
Sorry, but your own link states what I have said. Public ISPs are not liable in any way for customers traffic on their network. They do not need to forward any letters as they have no liablity.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr. |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Vitelity VOIP
| said by r81984:What you linked to definately does not apply to public ISPs as they do not host any content and they lease an IP address to the customer. This becomes murky if the content is being served from an ISP where the ISP isn't a purely transit network (like a backbone IP provider). There have been cases filed against hosting providers in the past, including dedicated server providers who simply lease out a server and a block of IP space for an end-user. They have little control over how people use the server, but legal action has still been pursued for a couple providers who were defiant in handling DMCA complaints.
said by r81984:Your own link states "the federal Communications Decency Act (CDA) still protects the ISP from liability for content provided by third parties" Yes, that was an argument that came up in one of the court cases I just mentioned.
Again, this comes down to a really simply cost analysis:
$$ - setup a department to mail out notifications that gets you complete immunity from prosecution under the safe harbor provisions.
$$$$$ - the cost to proceed with even a single legal case to defend their position in a DMCA violation that prosecutors choose to pursue. (that the ISP would likely win anyway, due to the provisions you outlined above)
It's setup that you would have to be completely stupid to not position your company to have safe harbor protection. It would be akin to operating a business without liability insurance. |
|
r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX Reviews:
·row44
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
| You ignored your own link.
I will cut out the good part.
said by yourlink :
A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider’s transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, or by reason of the intermediate and transient storage of that material in the course of such transmitting, routing, or providing connections
A public ISP is 100% not liable for any copyrighted material. The clause you are speaking about to forward letters is not needed as they are already 100% protected from being liable as stated in your link.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr. |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Vitelity VOIP
| said by r81984:A public ISP is 100% not liable for any copyrighted material. The clause you are speaking about to forward letters is not needed as they are already 100% protected from being liable as stated in your link. I'm not ignoring the link, and despite what you think that says, the courts have already ruled differently in a web hosting case.
Lawyers for Chen had argued that Akanoc and Managed Solutions were protected under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's (DMCA), which limits the liability of ISPs for activities by its customers that might constitute copyright infringements. The defense lawyers said Chen and his companies could not be held liable for the actions of Web sites they might have hosted but did not directly own or operate.
Louis Vuitton claimed that Chen and his hosting companies were contributing to the illegal activities by providing the infrastructure that enabled the sale of counterfeit goods. They further said that Chen and his companies had been informed of the activity by Louis Vuitton but still refused to implement a policy for removing the offending sites, which was their responsibility.
The verdict "establishes a standard" for trademark infringement complaints on the Internet, said Andy Coombs, Louis Vuitton's counsel, in a statement. "It represents a positive contribution to existing case law and marks the first time statutory damages have been awarded against those found contributorily liable for trademark infringement," Coombs said. Source: »www.computerworld.com/s/article/···myId=144
This is no different than the subscriber of an ISP distributing copyrighted material, a DMCA notice is supplied to the ISP (who owns the IP), and the ISP takes no action. Given that there are now cases to establish precedence, there is no way in hell an ISP is going to simply ignore DMCA complaints. |
|
