| cox shut OFF service, no email can they do this??
called cox, because we THOUGHT maybe inet had gone down. they informed us, someone from **aa "complained" and they just SHUT OFF our service, no warning email. however, we did NOT have ANY movies on our harddrive. when talking with tech, explained it had NOTHING to do with movies (an 11mb file was supposedly the problem, luv to see a movie thats 11mgs!)
his response: we just do what we're told.
wtf? can they do this?
thank you.
p.s. the client in use/shared was: DC++ |
|
|
|
 ctripIslam is a Religion of PeacePremium
join:2002-07-16
New Cumberland, PA
 ·Comcast
| They can do whatever they want. You have no Constitutionally protected right to Cox high speed internet.
Get a new provider and don't share copyrighted materials anymore.
--
Spread Internet Explorer! - The browser you can trust to not have those annoying Firefox twits supporting it! |
|
 hitachi369Embrace Your RightsPremium
join:2001-10-03
Grand Rapids, MI
kudos:4
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to seussie
mp3's are about 11mb in size. That is prolly what you got busted for. Anyways what you got busted stealing is a moot point, just call cox up and see if there hook ya back up, if not find a new service. I would also avoid any P2P network, they are not worth it.
--
Please view the Hitachi3694MVM page at http://mvm4.hitachi369.com |
|
| said by hitachi369:Anyways what you got busted stealing is a moot point, in 1985 the United States Supreme Court held a trial for a man named Dowling. he was accused of stealing and interstate transit of stolen goods along with copyright infringment charges. he was making bootleg ELVIS recordings and selling them so there was even 'hard copies' of the work made and they were being sold for profit.
what the the United States Supreme Court decided in that case was a very simple principal that has been upheld since the decision. they made an official decision that copyright infringment does not constitute theft. almost 10 years later the downling decision was validated in a 1994 US Court of Appeals ruling where the operator of an internet BBS was aquited of charges because the state had obtained survalence warrants based on alegations of theft but no theft had been present at any time.
in short the United States Supreme Court disagrees with your comment and copyright infringment is not stealing in any way shape or form.
incidentally, even the copyright laws do not prohibit someone from being in recipt of an infringed copy of work. production of a copies, and distribution of copies are clearly defined as infringments but being in recipt of an infringed copy is not defined as infringment anywhere in the copyright laws.
if you don't believe me on that one then i challange you to find just one case of someone being charged with copyright infringment for being in recipt of an infringed work. the scene relese group DOD was busted after several month of survalence. the agents involved in the case witnessed hundreds if not thousands of instances where the group recieved infringed works from other groups but when it came time to charge the parties involved not one single charge related to being in recipt of copyrighted work was levied.
do you think the goverment just decided not to prosocute some of the crimes they had iron clad proof happened or do you think they had no laws to base charges on? since every defendant in the case faced multiple charges i am pretty confident it was not an act of kindness but rather exactly what i said that no crime had existed.
peace out,
dumwaldo |
|
hitachi369Embrace Your RightsPremium
join:2001-10-03
Grand Rapids, MI
kudos:4 Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| said by dumwaldo:in short the United States Supreme Court disagrees with your comment and copyright infringment is not stealing in any way shape or form. And if this a legal case this would matter, however the **AA doesn't really care about that and will be more than happy to bring you to court on a civil case. Hell, that doesn't even matter, because at this point all they have been doing is settling out of court with or without proof of any wrong doing, you don't even need to be alive. As far as they are concerned it is theft, stealing choose your synonym, so don't use P2P.
If you want to hide behind you illusion of protection, go ahead. However if the **AA came knocking on your door, regardless of whatever you say to them they can and would bog you down in a legal hellstorm. Right and wrong sadly don't mean much today in America, what it boils down to is money, and I don't think you have the financial backing to hold up against them.
--
Please view the Hitachi3694MVM page at http://mvm4.hitachi369.com |
|
 dml_68He Who Laughs Last Thinks Slowest.
join:2002-01-09
Vancouver, WA | reply to seussie
Self pride would dictate not giving them another $$$ of your money. Find a local DSL provider and move on.
I would never let another penny from my vast finincal empire (ok ok so $23 in my checking account does not qualify as an Empire) go to them again.
|
|
| reply to seussie
make no mistake, the RIAA and the MPAA both care very much what the law says. what the law says is exactly the reason why they have sued thousands of people for uploading but still have not even attempted to sue so much as one person for downloading. if they didn't care then they would bring action based on downloading as well.
as far as they are concerned it is copyright infringment and that is exacly what they sue people for. as far as they are concerned the public is also stupid enough to believe it if they say one thing but do another. they SAY it is stealing but they ACT based on it being copyright infringment. i say actions speak louder than words and based on actions, or rather lack of action i would say both the RIAA and the MPAA are well aware that it is not stealing because they have never tried to say that in court. |
|
 PlasticmanWill Work For BandwidthPremium
join:2002-09-06
Harrisville, RI | reply to seussie
said by seussie:can they do this?? called cox, because we THOUGHT maybe inet had gone down. they informed us, someone from **aa "complained" and they just SHUT OFF our service, no warning email. however, we did NOT have ANY movies on our harddrive. when talking with tech, explained it had NOTHING to do with movies (an 11mb file was supposedly the problem, luv to see a movie thats 11mgs!) his response: we just do what we're told. wtf? can they do this? thank you. p.s. the client in use/shared was: DC++ Cox does not just shut you off with out prior notice first. They will send you an email reguarding the complaint. If they get more complaints from the riaa or mpaa then they will take action. But if you did not share at all. Do you have a wireless router? If so, you could have been hijacked by somebody using your connection to share and letting you take the fall.
Plasticman
--
Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I cannot accept, and the wisdom to hide the bodies of those people I had to kill today because they pissed me off |
|
 jonezGot Anime?Premium
join:2004-09-24
Stow, MA | good point.
make sure you are using encryption on your wireless network (if you have one), even if you live in the middle of the woods. |
|
