dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2429
share rss forum feed

supaboy

join:2008-11-19

Mediacom Disconnects and Bans Alleged Internet Pirates

»torrentfreak.com/us-internet-pro···-120925/

So, what do you think? Reading different customer complaints i can't see why this company is playing such a devil role...


Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-01
IA
kudos:2

1 recommendation

That policy has been around for a while. I like the idea of sending a massive amount of fake notices LOL.
--
I speak for myself, not my employer.


Oleth

@mycingular.net
I'm curious to know if your strikes ever fall off? Like a year or two after getting a notice.

Clever Name
Premium
join:2005-05-06
Davenport, IA
reply to supaboy


Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-01
IA
kudos:2
reply to Oleth
The SSN gets blacklisted and it never goes away.
--
I speak for myself, not my employer.

oletheos

join:2010-10-26
Springfield, MO
well that sucks. should be like speeding tickets. after a few years the infractions fall away. especially when the warnings were enough to stop bit torrenting all together.

supaboy

join:2008-11-19
reply to Anonymous
What about living together with your wife? I get blocked, she still has different SSN


Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-01
IA
kudos:2
That's why you should never have two names on the account
--
I speak for myself, not my employer.

CappinHoff

join:2007-01-05
Des Moines, IA
Reviews:
·Mediacom
reply to supaboy
said by supaboy:

»torrentfreak.com/us-internet-pro···-120925/

So, what do you think? Reading different customer complaints i can't see why this company is playing such a devil role...

The complaints are far less than the other ISP's like Century Link, Comcast, Cox and a few others. As for this policy, it's been around for years and it's not exactly what that torrentfreak article said either.


moran

@mchsi.com
reply to supaboy
seems a bit harsh. I'm surprised these content providers don't come after the people directly though. A ban is nothing compared to getting sued for each track they think you downloaded, defending yourself and/or paying up would be very expensive.

At a dollar a song, better to just pay for your music... cough... I just wish these services would provide lossless masters like FLAC. Though apple's AAC files are for the most part, very good. I used itunes match for 25 bucks to convert some low bitrate stuff into their variable bitrate AAC format, really worth the cash. Though not all bands allow their stuff on itunes. AC/DC for example. I'm a bit obsessive compulsive.. when a third of my tracks ended up as nice sounding AAC, I wanted them all that way... one format or another.. not both ... but itunes match isn't perfect, it would only match about 80%.

Amazon's are cheaper, but I've found I notice the quality difference mostly due to more clipping from jacked up volume levels on the converted tracks. I really don't like having both MP3 and AAC in my collection, one or the other. :P

GLIMMER

join:2004-01-17
Fisher, IL
there not going after you for downloading the file. There going after you for uploading the file. p2p is an interesting thing like that. You here all the time about this stuff. I know people who download gigs and gigs of stuff but they dont allow there torrent client to upload anything... and they have never had a notice...

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to supaboy
It is both uploads and downloads. Media companies have lately gone as far as seeding their own movies on torrents so they can see downloads them and send them notices.

GLIMMER

join:2004-01-17
Fisher, IL
DMCA law states you cannot SHARE a file downloading is not sharing uploading is. Its really a whole mess I sort of like the 6 strikes idea myself.

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to supaboy
That may be what DMCA states, but that is not how it is interpreted. They still consider it copyright infringement and if they have sufficient evidence, their claims will hold up in court.

Maybe it is possible Mediacom could switch to the 6 strikes method once it goes live? I never heard they were one of the providers, but I cannot see them keeping this strict 3 strikes policy for no reason.


random tech

@mchsi.com
reply to GLIMMER
It is illegal to download anything if you do not have the permission of the copyright holder.


ltsnow
Premium
join:2006-04-08
Valdosta, GA
kudos:1
said by random tech :

It is illegal to download anything if you do not have the permission of the copyright holder.

Since so much of the material on YouTube is copyrighted how is one supposed to know if the copyright holder is allowing it to stay up or if they just haven't found it yet?

jpatton

join:2010-04-07
Stillwater, OK
reply to random tech
said by random tech :

It is illegal to download anything if you do not have the permission of the copyright holder.

That's absurd. Before I go to a website (Google, DSL Reports, etc.) or click on any link, I need to have permission first? Because my browser is going to automatically download the html, images, javascript, flash, etc. on the page linked to or the binary file linked to. Putting the onus on downloaders to get permission before they download anything is flat-out absurd.

I think copyright holders should be fairly compensated. But you have to go after the people who are putting copyrighted material for free download or on illegal markets. Unless you're ok with ISPs, the RIAA, the MPAA, and all such stakeholders having open access to your web browsing habits and being able to pick-and-choose which sites you go to, and to intervene if you happen to click on a link to something you "don't have permission to download". I'm not ok with that.

CappinHoff

join:2007-01-05
Des Moines, IA
Reviews:
·Mediacom
said by ltsnow:

said by random tech :

It is illegal to download anything if you do not have the permission of the copyright holder.

Since so much of the material on YouTube is copyrighted how is one supposed to know if the copyright holder is allowing it to stay up or if they just haven't found it yet?

They just haven't found it yet. Every so often you can find a fan made video that has the music removed due to this.

said by jpatton:

said by random tech :

It is illegal to download anything if you do not have the permission of the copyright holder.

That's absurd. Before I go to a website (Google, DSL Reports, etc.) or click on any link, I need to have permission first? Because my browser is going to automatically download the html, images, javascript, flash, etc. on the page linked to or the binary file linked to. Putting the onus on downloaders to get permission before they download anything is flat-out absurd.

I think copyright holders should be fairly compensated. But you have to go after the people who are putting copyrighted material for free download or on illegal markets. Unless you're ok with ISPs, the RIAA, the MPAA, and all such stakeholders having open access to your web browsing habits and being able to pick-and-choose which sites you go to, and to intervene if you happen to click on a link to something you "don't have permission to download". I'm not ok with that.

It's not really that. It's for digital media like movies, music, apps. Html, images(unless copy written by the artist), javascript, flash aren't included.

GLIMMER

join:2004-01-17
Fisher, IL
reply to random tech
said by random tech :

It is illegal to download anything if you do not have the permission of the copyright holder.

True and Not True.. This is the area that the law needs to be rewritten.

It still stands that mediacrap is protected by Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA). So as long as they pass the dmca notices down to the users there is no reason to use this 3 strikes crap.


StupidPeople

@mchsi.com
reply to random tech
Literally ANYTHING you download holds other people;s copyright information. A picture has a car that is not yours in it. Any logo that comes across your computer is "owned" by someone else... ANY IMAGE AT ALL!!!

So... You have to have permission to look at ANYTHING on the internet and you have to know what it is you are ABOUT to look at BEFORE you look at it to know weather or not to look at it...

That's INSANE!!!


GeorgeOrwell

@mchsi.com
reply to supaboy
I believe it is against our constitutional rights to let CORPORATIONS be our judge jury and executioner...

It is INSANE that we have to even PAY for the right to defend ourselves if they ever send out those stupid warnings.

I even received a warning because I downloaded FREE SHOWS FROM NBC that THEY were streaming to my computer...

My Internet provider sucks, their service sucks and their customer service sucks... Do I REALLY expect them to be FAIR when doling out legal punishment???

I WOULD LIKE A JURY OF MY PEERS PLEASE...

“Big Brother is Watching You.”
George Orwell, 1984


GeorgeOrwell

@mchsi.com
reply to StupidPeople
By the way, if you just read my last post, _I_ wrote that and did NOT give you specific permission to download that text and read it...

CONGRATULATIONS!!
YOU ARE NOW GUILTY OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!!

LOL!

6 times and no internet for LIFE...

Yes, it's that easy... And think about that fact the next time you hit "REPLY" to someone's email and COPY or FORWARD their technically "COPYRIGHTED" text WITHOUT permission...

karrun

join:2011-03-03
It's only 3 times with Mediacom. I hate this "guilty until proven innocent" stance with Mediacom. My neighbor, who wouldn't even know how to illegally download, was banned for life after 3 strikes. We're pretty sure who did the downloading (neighbor boys) but no way to prove it. The first time was her "fault" in that she didn't secure her router. The second time I think she used a weak password. Then she paid BB big bucks to install a secure router and she was again hacked after several months. Mediacom would not even consider reinstating her. In fact, they invited her to sign up again after several months, but it was apparently a mistake because they disconnected her after she called up for technical help soon after. Where we are Mediacom is a monopoly. THere should be some other sort of punishment other than this banned for life crap. Maybe a required course on securing your router or copyright infringement.

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
said by karrun:

It's only 3 times with Mediacom. I hate this "guilty until proven innocent" stance with Mediacom. My neighbor, who wouldn't even know how to illegally download, was banned for life after 3 strikes. We're pretty sure who did the downloading (neighbor boys) but no way to prove it. The first time was her "fault" in that she didn't secure her router. The second time I think she used a weak password. Then she paid BB big bucks to install a secure router and she was again hacked after several months. Mediacom would not even consider reinstating her. In fact, they invited her to sign up again after several months, but it was apparently a mistake because they disconnected her after she called up for technical help soon after. Where we are Mediacom is a monopoly. THere should be some other sort of punishment other than this banned for life crap. Maybe a required course on securing your router or copyright infringement.

You don't have any DSL service in the area?

Maybe Mediacom will adopt a 6 strikes policy after other providers test it out. But that would probably not do anything for the people already banned.

karrun

join:2011-03-03
No DSL. Only other option is satellite, which is expensive as hell and, so slow you can't even think about streaming Netflix.
I still think reasonable internet access is a right and Mediacom is denying this right without due process.


Goodpoint

@mchsi.com
reply to supaboy
Good point!

Libraries lend copies of books to multiple people all the time!

We need to stop corporate bullies from taking away our legal rights to share our legally owned property!