how-to block ads
|
mario620
join:2003-06-27
Los Angeles, CA
| Notice of Claim of Copyright Infringement This is what I got through email. I don't understand what it trys to say. Should I worry about this? What should I do about it? I have already deleted the file.
Dear Comcast High-Speed Internet Subscriber:
Comcast has received a notification of claimed infringement made under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the 'DMCA'). This notification, made by a copyright owner or its authorized agent, reports an alleged infringement of one or more copyrighted works made on or over Comcast's High-Speed Internet service (the 'Service'). The works identified in the notification of claimed infringement are listed below. In accordance with the DMCA and Comcast's Acceptable Use Policy, Comcast request that you immediately remove the allegedly infringing works from the Service or Comcast will be forced to remove or block access to the works.
If you believe in good faith that the allegedly infringing works have been removed or blocked by mistake or misidentification, then you may send a counter notification to Comcast. Upon Comcast's receipt of a counter notification that satisfies the requirements of the DMCA, Comcast will provide a copy of the counter notification to the party who sent the original notification of claimed infringement. We will then follow the DMCA's procedures with respect to a received counter notification.
For more information regarding Comcast's copyright infringement policy, procedures, and contact information, please read our Acceptable Use Policy by clicking on the Terms of Service link at »www.comcast.net.
Sincerely,
Comcast Network Abuse and Observance Team
Copyright work(s) identified in the notification of claimed infringement:
Title: Will & Grace (TV)
Infringement Source: BitTorrent
Initial Infringement Timestamp: 15 Mar 2006 10:27:18 GMT
Recent Infringment Timestamp: 15 Mar 2006 10:27:18 GMT
Infringer Username:
Infringing Filename: Will.And.Grace.S08E15.HDTV.XviD-LOL.avi
Infringing Filesize: 183711744
Infringers IP Address: 00.000.00.00
Infringers DNS Name: c-00-000-00-00.hsd1.ca.comcast.net
Infringing URL: 00.000.00.00:51323\Will.And.Grace.S08E15.HDTV.XviD-LOL.avi
Changed IP addy's just to be safe. | |
|  Justin413
join:2003-07-22
Methuen, MA | Re: Notice of Claim of Copyright Infringement Sounds like you have some copywrite stuff on your computer.. are you using some type of p2p? sharing the files with the network.. ect.. i would get rid of the file if i was you. | |
| | | 
jbob
Reach Out and Touch Someone
Premium
join:2004-04-26
Little Rock, AR
 ·Comcast
 ·AT&T Southwest
| Re: Notice of Claim of Copyright Infringement I assume he meant changing his IP addy in his post.
If the OP is really worried it'd be better to consult a lawyer than anyone on this site. If you were sharing, as in uploading the said file, then you were in violation. One movie or file might not get you any trouble since historically they seem to be going after the mega uploaders, at least in the music area. If you only downloaded the file and didn't allow it to be shared(uploaded) then "MAYBE" you'll be ok. Unfortunately unless you made changes to the default settings while you were downloading the file was also being shared with other trying to upload it from you.
In some recent court challenges though the judges seem confused about the differences between illegal sharing and just downloading. YMMV | |
| 
Matt420
@comcast.net | Sorry to hear this but by the way what program did u use to download the file? Just curious? | |
| |
Matt420
@comcast.net | Re: Notice of Claim of Copyright Infringement nevermind you used Bittorrent | |
| 
J D McDorce
Premium
join:2001-12-29
Westland, MI
| said by »www.comcast.net/terms/use.jsp :
Copyright Infringement
Comcast is committed to complying with U.S. copyright and related laws, and requires all customers and users of the Service to comply with these laws. Accordingly, you may not store any material or content on, or disseminate any material or content over, the Service (or any part of the Service) in any manner that constitutes an infringement of third party intellectual property rights, including rights granted by U.S. copyright law. Owners of copyrighted works who believe that their rights under U.S. copyright law have been infringed may take advantage of certain provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (the "DMCA") to report alleged infringements. It is Comcast's policy in accordance with the DMCA and other applicable laws to reserve the right to terminate the Service provided to any customer or user who is either found to infringe third party copyright or other intellectual property rights, including repeat infringers, or who Comcast believes in its sole discretion is infringing these rights. Comcast may terminate the Service at any time with or without notice for any affected customer or user.
Copyright owners may report alleged infringements of their works that are stored on the Service or the Personal Web Features by sending Comcast's authorized agent a notification of claimed infringement that satisfies the requirements of the DMCA. Upon Comcast's receipt of a satisfactory notice of claimed infringement for these works, Comcast will respond expeditiously to either directly or indirectly (i) remove the allegedly infringing work(s) stored on the Service or the Personal Web Features or (ii) disable access to the work(s). Comcast will also notify the affected customer or user of the Service of the removal or disabling of access to the work(s). If the affected customer or user believes in good faith that the allegedly infringing works have been removed or blocked by mistake or misidentification, then that person may send a counter notification to Comcast. Upon Comcast's receipt of a counter notification that satisfies the requirements of DMCA, Comcast will provide a copy of the counter notification to the person who sent the original notification of claimed infringement and will follow the DMCA's procedures with respect to a received counter notification. In all events, you expressly agree that Comcast will not be a party to any disputes or lawsuits regarding alleged copyright infringement.
This snippet from the AUP should provide some insight regarding why you received the email.
In addition to deleting the file, you may also want to consider discontinuing the use of whatever software you used to obtain the file, as well as delete any other similar copyrighted material. | |
| | 
oldTDNickell
Premium
join:2000-12-19
Federal Way, WA | Re: Notice of Claim of Copyright Infringement The advice and info given by J D McDorce is the correct way.
Just don't do it again and you will be alright:) | |
| mario620
join:2003-06-27
Los Angeles, CA | Sounds like I should just sit and wait and see what happens. I wonder if anyone else has gotten this from thier isp's. I hope that they really pay more attention to the mega uploaders and music shares. | |
| |
J D McDorce
Premium
join:2001-12-29
Westland, MI
| Re: Notice of Claim of Copyright Infringement I've seen them posted from time to time. ISPs (in this case, Comcast) are bound by the DMCA to provide notification to their customers should the copyright holder (or their agent) report alleged infringements of their works. Most of the letters of this type that I have seen are for TV shows. Had it been a work of music associated with the RIAA, you would likely have been presented with the opportunity (by a party other than Comcast) to pay several thousand dollars to avoid being sued by a RIAA member instead of receiving an email from Comcast. | |
| mario620
join:2003-06-27
Los Angeles, CA | I'll do that, I'm glad to hear that it's more or less a slap of the hand. Just wondering how they know exactly what has been downloaded. And if there is anyway that the files that I download can not be scanned or read my the isp? | |
| | 
scooby
Premium
join:2001-05-01
Schaumburg, IL
| Re: Notice of Claim of Copyright Infringement said by mario620  :I'll do that, I'm glad to hear that it's more or less a slap of the hand. Just wondering how they know exactly what has been downloaded. And if there is anyway that the files that I download can not be scanned or read my the isp? Bittorrent has trackers that show whats being downloaded by which ip. The company just sends a letter to abuse@comcast.net saying this ip was downloading such and such at this time. Comcast lines the ip up to your account and forwards the warning.
Dont use bittorrent or use bittorrent with password protected trackers. | |
| mario620
join:2003-06-27
Los Angeles, CA | Password protected trackers, if I stick to these. Will it be harder for them to locate me? Or they can still see me downloading, but they would have to sign up to that tracker and have access? | |
| | 
motoracer
join:2003-09-15
Valencia, CA | Re: Notice of Claim of Copyright Infringement Why not just stop the problem at the source and stop downloading/uploading copyrighted material  | |
| | | 
rog
Premium
join:2002-07-03
BC
·Shaw
| Re: Notice of Claim of Copyright Infringement said by motoracer :Why not just stop the problem at the source and stop downloading/uploading copyrighted material With that attitude there would be no technological advancement. Stealing copyrighted material has led to all sorts of new improvements in software etc. RIAA's actions have driven software developers to new heights. Kinda like turning a country into a school for terrorists. | |
| | 
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
3 edits | With bittorrent, anyone that can connect to the tracker eventually is able to know everyone else that is downloading the file. In addition, clients that make use of a distributed database and/or peer exchange (such as Azureus) make it so that even people not able to connect to a particular tracker may be able to see everyone who is downloading a particular file regardless of what client they are using.
Bottom line is if you are really concerned about it don't download copyrighted material unless you know the owner of said copyright is ok with it, especially if you choose to use bittorrent, even with password protected trackers. Bittorrent is, by design, not anonymous.
--
He that winna lout an lift a preen wull nivver be warth a groat. | |
| 
hurl8
Premium
join:2003-01-21
Ontario, CA | Try IRC. lol =) | |
| 
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| If I were you, I'd just ignore it. You downloaded will & grace using bittorrent? big deal.
Comcast has no means of blocking access, nor are they required to by law. I don't see them actually doing anything at all about this. After all, Comcast benefits from p2p use because it is one of the attractions of broadband.
This is a tactic a company is using to scare you. The only thing you have to fear is fear itself, quite literally. If you blow this off, like I would, you'll see that ultimately it is hot air.
In the extremely unlikely event that you were to get sued, you could merely claim that you did not download the file. It would be impossible for the company suing you to prove that you did, unless you came out and admitted it.
- changing IP won't matter
- deleting the file won't matter
- whether you continue to use BT or not won't matter
said by mario620 :Sounds like I should just sit and wait and see what happens. Good idea. If I were you, I would throw it away and do nothing, or send a counter-notice.
said by J D McDorce : ISPs (in this case, Comcast) are bound by the DMCA to provide notification to their customers should the copyright holder (or their agent) report alleged infringements of their works. No, they are not. They are required to give the user notice when they receive a subpoena from the copyright holder requesting their customer's identity. If you don't want them to get your identity, you can send a counter-notice. Otherwise, they get it.
said by J D McDorce : Had it been a work of music associated with the RIAA, you would likely have been presented with the opportunity (by a party other than Comcast) to pay several thousand dollars to avoid being sued by a RIAA member instead of receiving an email from Comcast. You would have seen the comcast letter first, then the RIAA demand letter (an empty threat) sometime later.
said by oldTDNickell :Just don't do it again and you will be alright Allow yourself to be intimidated, and the copyright terrorists win.
said by motoracer :Why not just stop the problem at the source and stop downloading/uploading copyrighted material Maybe he likes to watch will & grace, and doesn't have a TIVO to record it with 'legally'? :P I download episodes of TV shows all the time. It is a convenient thing that means I don't have to schedule my life around when a given show is going to be on TV. I could care less if the copyright holder doesn't like it. This is no different from getting a TIVO or some similar device to record shows, then taking out the commercials. | |
| | mario620
join:2003-06-27
Los Angeles, CA
| Re: No big deal, idle threats said by J D McDorce : ISPs (in this case, Comcast) are bound by the DMCA to provide notification to their customers should the copyright holder (or their agent) report alleged infringements of their works. No, they are not. They are required to give the user notice when they receive a subpoena from the copyright holder requesting their customer's identity. If you don't want them to get your identity, you can send a counter-notice. Otherwise, they get it.
Sending the counter notice is the one thing left in my mind. If I send the notice and state that I have deleted the file. I don't want to put myself in that hole. So I really don't know what to do in that case. Also can my isp scan my hard drive for other stuff? I have deleted everything that I can think of that could link me to more trouble. | |
| | | 
jap
Premium
join:2003-08-10
038xx
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | Re: No big deal, idle threats said by mario620 :Also can my isp scan my hard drive for other stuff? I have deleted everything that I can think of that could link me to more trouble. No, your ISP cannot scan your stored files: they can only see data as it is being transferred across their network.
Traditionally these notices go nowhere - especially on TV content. Sending a counter notice is a double-edged sword. On the one hand it firmly establishes that you received, read and comprehend the Comcast notice, thus removing the option to later play dumb about it. On the other it does place the onus back upon the copyright owner to escalate to the next level (supeona) if they want to pursue it. You may want to check what the EFF is currently recommending and go with that. Personally I would ignore it. Good luck sorting it out. | |
| | |
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| said by mario620 : If I send the notice and state that I have deleted the file. I don't want to put myself in that hole. So I really don't know what to do in that case. Also can my isp scan my hard drive for other stuff? I have deleted everything that I can think of that could link me to more trouble. #1. Legally, the ISP should not be handing over your identity. Any notice they could have been given would be defective. This was settled by the RIAA v Verizon case. p2p activity is NOT vulnerable to DMCA 17 USC 512(h) notices. No one should be able to (legally) get your identity from your ISP as a result of p2p use.
#2. Do not send a counter-notice saying you deleted the file. The counter-notice must include your name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, and that the subscriber will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of such person.
This counter notice is GIVEN TO THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER, making it easier for them to sue you, if they were so inclined. It makes little sense to provide a counter notice in the case of p2p.
#3. No, your ISP can NOT scan your hard drive.
#4. You should not overreact to this, the RIAA and its fellow copyright abusers prey on the ignorance and paranoia of good people who are doing nothing at all wrong by making use of the convenience of new technology the copyright holders refuse to embrace because the new technology makes it harder for them to manipulate and control the market.
said by mark_y_k :I don't know about comcast but Adelphia will give you a warning and the 2nd time you get complained on they will disconnect you i know 2 people i work with who were kicked off Adelphia for copyright infringement so if you have other choices for isp's don't worry about it I'm sure you could easily call up and get re-connected. Adelphia has NO INCENTIVE to kick off its own users. NONE. I highly doubt they have a company-wide policy of doing this, because it is against their business interests. Adelphia has NO LIABILITY for what its users do, they can legally ignore anything the RIAA et al. sends them.
said by Clever Name :I think owning a wireless router and claiming you're too ignorant to secure it properly would be a fairly good alibi. Some VERY evil copyright infringer must have hijacked my wireless connection and downloaded that horrible tv show. It is easier to merely say that other people have access to your computer, and that you did not download any such file. It would be impossible for them to prove you personally downloaded it, and unless they could do that, they lose and YOU get YOUR attorney's fees.
said by jap :Traditionally these notices go nowhere - especially on TV content. Sending a counter notice is a double-edged sword. On the one hand it firmly establishes that you received, read and comprehend the Comcast notice, thus removing the option to later play dumb about it. On the other it does place the onus back upon the copyright owner to escalate to the next level (supeona) if they want to pursue it. You may want to check what the EFF is currently recommending and go with that. Personally I would ignore it. Good luck sorting it out. Good advice, I would only correct one thing: the counter-notice hands the copyright holder everything they need to sue you on a silver platter. Even if they can't get your identity from the ISP (and they legally couldn't ANYWAY), you have now handed it to them. So, this is just a trick they are using to get your info from you.
said by J D McDorce :In addition, I am not aware of either a requirement or a practice by ISPs to notify their customers in the event that their identifying information be requested via subpoena. I don't know their policies, but they must notify you so that you can respond to the subpoena. The subpoenas are govered by the federal rules of civil procedure, in particular: »www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule45.htm
said by b1gdr3 :Yes, you should worry about it. Listening to these wannabe legal experts here can have your ass in a sling. Delete the file, uninstall bittorrent, and follow the Terms Of Service. If he follows "wannabe legal experts" he can still enjoy his downloads. If he follows "company shills" then he doesn't. As far as having his ass in a sling, can you point to ONE case where the RIAA took someone using p2p to trial and won? You can't, despite them filing lawsuits for YEARS. They make empty threats and manipulate people through ignorance and fear in order to extort money. If you ignore them, they have no power over you.
said by cableties :I'd be embarassed to even post that, let alone try to get convincing arguments that try to justify the illegal uploading/distribution of someone else's property. You are entitled to sheepishly follow the whims of the copyright cartel if that is your choice in life, but do not dare to pass judgment on those who resist them. Someone else's property? That is insanity. There is no real property involved. There is no theft involved. The only thing involved is a copyright cartel which routinely breaks the law to engage in price fixing and other monopolistic behavior, versus good people who refuse to go along with the cartel's tactics. If everyone just rolled over like you, iTunes would not exist. You'd be paying $20 for a music CD loaded with malware that screwed with your computer.
So don't try to condemn others when you are acting as a shill for a criminal cartel. | |
| | | |
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
1 edit | Re: No big deal, idle threats said by Kaltes :If he follows "wannabe legal experts" he can still enjoy his downloads. If he follows "company shills" then he doesn't. So are you volunteering to cover his legal expenses if he follows your advice and is wrong? Throwing around terms like "company shills" should be reason enough to not follow your advice. With a few exceptions I don't think anyone here really cares if he continues to share files or not we're just warning him of the potential outcomes. I agree that if he does nothing different that there's little chance that anything bad will happen but the potential still exists. Pretending that the danger does not exist in the name of a crusade against the media is foolish.
You can tease a chained dog in relative safety, but at some point that dog might not be chained.
--
He that winna lout an lift a preen wull nivver be warth a groat. | |
| | | | 
b1gdr3
I Blame Your Mother
join:2001-07-28
Pittsburgh, PA
| said by Kaltes :So don't try to condemn others when you are acting as a shill for a criminal cartel. I'm neither a shill or a fool. Just because you don't like or agree with the law does not exempt you from having to follow it. I'd say encouraging people to say the hell with the law is n't the brightest way to go, but people are going to do what they are going to do. I sincerely hope the OP took the sane peoples advice on this matter.
--
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers. | |
| | | | |
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| Re: No big deal, idle threats said by b1gdr3 :said by Kaltes :So don't try to condemn others when you are acting as a shill for a criminal cartel. I'm neither a shill or a fool. Just because you don't like or agree with the law does not exempt you from having to follow it. I'd say encouraging people to say the hell with the law is n't the brightest way to go, but people are going to do what they are going to do. I sincerely hope the OP took the sane peoples advice on this matter. You have no clue what copyright is, do you? You aren't breaking the law when you infringe a copyright. You are interfering with a PRIVATE RIGHT that a copyright holder can enforce with a CIVIL lawsuit. There are many things that are not "against the law" that are instead dealt with privately through lawsuits. | |
| | | | | | 
Konaguy
Live From Kailua-Kona, Hawaii
Premium
join:2000-10-21
Kailua Kona, HI
·Hawaiian Telcom
| Re: No big deal, idle threats said by Kaltes : You have no clue what copyright is, do you? You aren't breaking the law when you infringe a copyright. You are interfering with a PRIVATE RIGHT that a copyright holder can enforce with a CIVIL lawsuit. There are many things that are not "against the law" that are instead dealt with privately through lawsuits. Explain this one sherlock ?
»www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrim···8red.htm
»news.com.com/2010-1071-982121.html | |
| | | | | | |
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| Re: No big deal, idle threats said by Konaguy :said by Kaltes : You have no clue what copyright is, do you? You aren't breaking the law when you infringe a copyright. You are interfering with a PRIVATE RIGHT that a copyright holder can enforce with a CIVIL lawsuit. There are many things that are not "against the law" that are instead dealt with privately through lawsuits. Explain this one sherlock ? » www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrim···8red.htm» news.com.com/2010-1071-982121.html The NET criminalized large scale commercial piracy. The provisions that could possibly affect people using p2p are not at issue here, because downloading an episode of a TV show clearly does not fit under that law.
Secondly, that law has NEVER BEEN ENFORCED against p2p suers by the DOJ. Nor will it ever be enforced by them. Ashcroft was LOBBIED by the copyright holders to attempt to throw p2p users in jail and he rejected their efforts. Any attempt to enforce the law would result in immediate Constitutional challenges along with a public outcry and a rapid repeal of the law by Congressmen who can't afford to piss the public off.
So maybe you should go get a clue before spouting off, Sherlock. | |
| | | | | | | |
Konaguy
Live From Kailua-Kona, Hawaii
Premium
join:2000-10-21
Kailua Kona, HI
·Hawaiian Telcom
| Re: No big deal, idle threats said by Kaltes :So maybe you should go get a clue before spouting off, Sherlock. Wrong NET was enacted to fix a loophole in the law
that copyright infringement without financial
gain was legal. Think about it P2P=copyright infringement
without monetary gain.
Sherlock has it crossed your mind that if people illegally
downloaded copyrighted material the content folks would have
no incentive to make movies, software etc. You sound like
a socialist who believes everything including the water should be free. | |
| | mark_y_k
join:2004-06-30
Pound, VA
| I don't know about comcast but Adelphia will give you a warning and the 2nd time you get complained on they will disconnect you i know 2 people i work with who were kicked off Adelphia for copyright infringement so if you have other choices for isp's don't worry about it | |
| |
J D McDorce
Premium
join:2001-12-29
Westland, MI
| said by Kaltes :said by J D McDorce : ISPs (in this case, Comcast) are bound by the DMCA to provide notification to their customers should the copyright holder (or their agent) report alleged infringements of their works. No, they are not. They are required to give the user notice when they receive a subpoena from the copyright holder requesting their customer's identity. If you don't want them to get your identity, you can send a counter-notice. Otherwise, they get it. said by J D McDorce : Had it been a work of music associated with the RIAA, you would likely have been presented with the opportunity (by a party other than Comcast) to pay several thousand dollars to avoid being sued by a RIAA member instead of receiving an email from Comcast. You would have seen the comcast letter first, then the RIAA demand letter (an empty threat) sometime later. Apparently we do not share the same interpretation of 17 USC 512 (»www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/···00-.html ).
In addition, I am not aware of either a requirement or a practice by ISPs to notify their customers in the event that their identifying information be requested via subpoena. | |
| | 
TraumaJunkie
Premium
join:2004-03-05
Knoxville, TN
| First of all ISPs do have the ability to block commonly used ports that P@P programs use. Change the ports you say? Then those could be blocked also. And it is not Comcast or any other ISP that cares, if you re-read the mail it basically states that Comcast was presented with information from the copyright holder that you have downloaded a copyrighted file. The holder of the copyright KNOWS the IP number you used to DL the file (probably because you were also sharing the parts you had DL'd while getting the rest of the episode) because they were DL'ing it from you! If I were you I would respond and state the file has been deleted. Unless you do so, the next step will be for the copyright owner to get a court order for Comcast to provide the name and address of the person who has the IP assigned the date and time they DL'd the file and then take you to court.
Taking these Monday morning armchair quarterback's legal adice is not wise. The RIAA and the MPAA have sucessfully sued thousands of copyright infringement violators..do you wanna be next????
said by Kaltes :If I were you, I'd just ignore it. You downloaded will & grace using bittorrent? big deal. Comcast has no means of blocking access, nor are they required to by law. I don't see them actually doing anything at all about this. After all, Comcast benefits from p2p use because it is one of the attractions of broadband. This is a tactic a company is using to scare you. The only thing you have to fear is fear itself, quite literally. If you blow this off, like I would, you'll see that ultimately it is hot air. In the extremely unlikely event that you were to get sued, you could merely claim that you did not download the file. It would be impossible for the company suing you to prove that you did, unless you came out and admitted it. - changing IP won't matter - deleting the file won't matter - whether you continue to use BT or not won't matter said by mario620 :Sounds like I should just sit and wait and see what happens. Good idea. If I were you, I would throw it away and do nothing, or send a counter-notice. said by J D McDorce : ISPs (in this case, Comcast) are bound by the DMCA to provide notification to their customers should the copyright holder (or their agent) report alleged infringements of their works. No, they are not. They are required to give the user notice when they receive a subpoena from the copyright holder requesting their customer's identity. If you don't want them to get your identity, you can send a counter-notice. Otherwise, they get it. said by J D McDorce : Had it been a work of music associated with the RIAA, you would likely have been presented with the opportunity (by a party other than Comcast) to pay several thousand dollars to avoid being sued by a RIAA member instead of receiving an email from Comcast. You would have seen the comcast letter first, then the RIAA demand letter (an empty threat) sometime later. said by oldTDNickell :Just don't do it again and you will be alright Allow yourself to be intimidated, and the copyright terrorists win. said by motoracer :Why not just stop the problem at the source and stop downloading/uploading copyrighted material Maybe he likes to watch will & grace, and doesn't have a TIVO to record it with 'legally'? :P I download episodes of TV shows all the time. It is a convenient thing that means I don't have to schedule my life around when a given show is going to be on TV. I could care less if the copyright holder doesn't like it. This is no different from getting a TIVO or some similar device to record shows, then taking out the commercials.
--
I'm not really sure what I am doing, but I'm doing it anyway! | |
| | |
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| Re: No big deal, idle threats said by TraumaJunkie :First of all ISPs do have the ability to block commonly used ports that P@P programs use. The ISPs do not have the ability or the inclination to single out individual users and block specific ports from those users.
said by TraumaJunkie :Change the ports you say? Then those could be blocked also. There are some ports the ISPs can't block, like port 80, for obvious reasons. ISPs also cannot block most p2p ports for the reason that once word gets out that they're doing it, they will lose customers. The ISPs are NOT the copyright holders, they have different and competing interests. The ISPs want to make money, and p2p is a GOOD THING for them. The only reason that some ISPs block ports is that they are either short-sightedly using it as a form of bandwidth capping to cut down traffic, or they have individual stupid executives that put the RIAA's interests before the interests of their own company.
said by TraumaJunkie :Unless you do so, the next step will be for the copyright owner to get a court order for Comcast to provide the name and address of the person who has the IP assigned the date and time they DL'd the file and then take you to court. (1) They can't subpoena based on p2p use. Read RIAA v Verizon. So p2p use WILL NOT result in a successful subpoena.
(2) You show me one case ONE CASE where the RIAA has taken someone to court. All they do is threaten and extort settlements from people who are ignorant of the law. The fact is, the RIAA isn't going to spend $30,000+ on lawyers to get a judgment that will at most be a few thousand dollars.
said by TraumaJunkie :Taking these Monday morning armchair quarterback's legal adice is not wise. The RIAA and the MPAA have sucessfully sued thousands of copyright infringement violators..do you wanna be next????
#1. I am a lawyer. I am probably the only lawyer posting in this topic.
#2. You are wrong. The RIAA hasn't successfully sued anybody. They have sent threatening letters and extorted middle class people into 'settlements'. | |
| | | |
J D McDorce
Premium
join:2001-12-29
Westland, MI
| Re: No big deal, idle threats said by Kaltes :(1) They can't subpoena based on p2p use. Read RIAA v Verizon. So p2p use WILL NOT result in a successful subpoena. RIAA v. Verizon found that a 512(h) subpoena was not applicable to p2p. While the RIAA can no longer get a court clerk to rubber stamp a subpoena, they can still get a judge to issue a subpoena for subscriber information if a "John Doe" lawsuit is filed, even for p2p use.
(2) You show me one case ONE CASE where the RIAA has taken someone to court. All they do is threaten and extort settlements from people who are ignorant of the law. The fact is, the RIAA isn't going to spend $30,000+ on lawyers to get a judgment that will at most be a few thousand dollars. BMG Music, et al v. Gonzalez | |
| | | | |
See 7 replies to this post | |
| | |
Konaguy
Live From Kailua-Kona, Hawaii
Premium
join:2000-10-21
Kailua Kona, HI
·Hawaiian Telcom
| said by Kaltes :#1. I am a lawyer. I am probably the only lawyer posting in this topic. Well that is surprising, I would think someone of your caliber
would be a law abiding citizen.. I guess not. As far as I can
see you are commiting malpractice. | |
| | 
scrummie02
Bentley
Premium
join:2004-04-16
Arlington, VA
| "Maybe he likes to watch will & grace, and doesn't have a TIVO to record it with 'legally'? :P I download episodes of TV shows all the time. It is a convenient thing that means I don't have to schedule my life around when a given show is going to be on TV. I could care less if the copyright holder doesn't like it. This is no different from getting a TIVO or some similar device to record shows, then taking out the commercials."
I agree...with the last part anyway. I don't download music, but I do download TV shows because I give comcast enough money every month for cable and HBO. I certainly don't want to give them "extra" money for a DVR every month when I can download the show and watch it later. In my opinion that is the same and recording it on my old VCR and watching it later. It's public television not even HBO, so if I download something from CBS, FOX, UPN, ABC, NBC in my opinion it's not copyright infringement because it's free television anyway. I will continue to download Family Guy, War at Home, American Idol and 24 as I see fit because I have a lot of things going on right now and I miss the shows. | |
| | JimF
join:2003-06-15
Allentown, PA
1 edit | said by Kaltes :This is no different from getting a TIVO or some similar device to record shows, then taking out the commercials. It is quite different than using a TIVO. There, he has already paid the fee (through his cable TV provider) to see the show, and the TIVO is merely time-shifting it. Here, he may not even have paid for cable at all. If you do not see the difference, I am sure the copyright holder does. | |
| | |
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| Re: No big deal, idle threats said by JimF :said by Kaltes :This is no different from getting a TIVO or some similar device to record shows, then taking out the commercials. It is quite different than using a TIVO. There, he has already paid the fee (through his cable TV provider) to see the show, and the TIVO is merely time-shifting it. Here, he may not even have paid for cable at all. If you do not see the difference, I am sure the copyright holder does. time-shifting is one of those ridiculous fictions that cover up the truth. the supreme court used it as an excuse to reach a pro-consumer result in the betamax case. the logical extension of this argument, space-shifting, was rejected in the napster case.
What really matters, is that the convenience of hundreds of millions of consumers outweighs the ability of copyright holders to have absolute, limitless control over the distribution of their works. It is not in the public's best interest to give the copyright holders limitless control, and the last time I checked, it was the public's interest that mattered. The copyright holders should only have their way when it is in the public's interest to give them their way.
As it stands now, the copyright holders have power far in excess of the public interest, because of the effectiveness of their lobbying operations, whereas the public at large is not mobilized and is nearly powerless on this issue legislatively.
Therefore, the copyright holders will naturally use their lobbying power to get unfair laws drafted, and the public will simply ignore those unjust laws. When push comes to shove, and someone tries to throw an 11-years-old p2p user in jail, the copyright holders lose, and they know it. This kind of thing has already happened, for example when sellout Congressman Berman tried to legalize RIAA computer hacking. The outcry that resulted shut that little plan down. | |
| 
samkaye
join:2001-04-14
Beverly Hills, FL | When will people learn not to use Bittorrent ect. Get yourself a news host (i use newshosting) and you will never see a letter like that again. | |
| | 
quatra
Premium
join:2003-06-22
Matthews, NC
 ·magicjack.com
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Notice of Claim of Copyright Infringement Eventually they'll get to newsgroup users as well. Everything can be tracked. Terrorists probably use newsgroups therefore all newsgroup users should be drawn and quartered. I wish they would spend their money on developing better legal ways to access their copyrighted materials. | |
| | |
scrummie02
Bentley
Premium
join:2004-04-16
Arlington, VA
| Re: Notice of Claim of Copyright Infringement "Maybe he likes to watch will & grace, and doesn't have a TIVO to record it with 'legally'? :P I download episodes of TV shows all the time. It is a convenient thing that means I don't have to schedule my life around when a given show is going to be on TV. I could care less if the copyright holder doesn't like it. This is no different from getting a TIVO or some similar device to record shows, then taking out the commercials." - quatra
The terrorists have websites too, so everyone that hosts websites or as an account with a web hosting provider should be drawn and quartered too. Why stop there? The terrorists use the internet to spew their islamofacist teachings, everyone who uses the internet should be drawn and quartered as well. Oh yeah, they make little video tapes of Osama bin F*ckface too, we should hang all those that use personal video cameras as well. Since they also release audio tapes as well, we better get every single person that has a personal cassette recorder or similar device that can record and regurgitate audio.
I am glad to see the the concepts of logic and reasoning have developed fully in your brain.../sarcasm. | |
| | | |
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| They clearly haven't developed in yours said by scrummie02 :I am glad to see the the concepts of logic and reasoning have developed fully in your brain.../sarcasm. heh | |
| cmaenginsb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA
| As someone who works for an ISP, I can shed a bit of light on this. We would get those types of requests all the time. All we would do is notify the appropriate end user that they have attracted some bad attention and to delete the offending file.
At this point generally they haven't been supeoned nor will they if the offending file/s is/are removed.
As what you are doing is against Comcast's TOS the correct thing to do is delete the file and forget about it.
--
CCNA, Comtrain Certified Tower Climber | |
| 
Lumberjack
Premium
join:2003-01-18
Newport News, VA
| First, you shouldn't share copyrighted material. Second unless you have a license to obtain/use the material you shouldn't obtain it (regardless of the source).
Here are the common reasons people do stupid things with copying data (not pointing any fingers here).
1) They think it costs to much to legally obtain. Ah yes, "I don't want to pay $20 for a CD; it's not fair, so I'll download it, ha". This is stupid. Even though the commercial is stupid (we've all seen it by now) you most likely don't steal tangible items (purse, car, etc..) yet because data can be "copied" you think its not stealing. The license and laws state that copying digital works (usually) is a bad thing unless you own the original and don't distribute the copies.
2) The law on copyright isn't fair. This one is a pure excuse people use when they don't want to pay for copyrighted works (almost the same as #1 above). Guess what folks, like other things in the US and other countries if you don't like the law work to change it. If you just bitch and complain it means nothing (except you're a looser).
3) They don't read the license. For software this is simple. If you can obtain it for free and the license says its free, fine... just follow the license for distribution rights. If you had to buy it or the license says you have to buy it don't give away copies (reselling the original is ok). Moves/tv shows etc. "credits" and usually the credits have a copyright statement. This usually tells you that the owner owns it and users can't just take it and resell/give it away.
4) For software, this is my favorite... "Software should be free, damn the copyright, patents and licenses!" While I enjoy using GPL, BSD and Apache style license (as well as others that give away for free) I also write software for a job. When you steal software its like stealing a car... it costs to design, assemble and produce so where the @#@# do people get off thinking it should all be free? In the case of the GPL and other free license the auther decided to be nice and give the software away. With other software (MS, Oracle, WinRar, etc..) the author spent time, money and effort to bring you applications you use and for the most part enjoy. They need to eat and you need the software so like buying a car, you should buy the software. I can go on and on about this.. but as most of us "experienced users/engineers" know Linux and most popular GPL licensed projects would be nowhere today with out some sort of income. While the software can be obtained for free people have been paid to work on it or have gained financially from using it (hmm, does this server run on Apache? Does it host adds?).
Anyway enough of my rant...
--
»www.fairtax.org | |
| | bullinchinas
join:2006-04-09
Gary, IN
1 edit | Re: Notice of Claim of Copyright Infringement reply to mario620
First, you shouldn't share copyrighted material. Second unless you have a license to obtain/use the material you shouldn't obtain it (regardless of the source).
Here are the common reasons people do stupid things with copying data (not pointing any fingers here).
1) They think it costs to much to legally obtain. Ah yes, "I don't want to pay $20 for a CD; it's not fair, so I'll download it, ha". This is stupid. Even though the commercial is stupid (we've all seen it by now) you most likely don't steal tangible items (purse, car, etc..) yet because data can be "copied" you think its not stealing. The license and laws state that copying digital works (usually) is a bad thing unless you own the original and don't distribute the copies.
2) The law on copyright isn't fair. This one is a pure excuse people use when they don't want to pay for copyrighted works (almost the same as #1 above). Guess what folks, like other things in the US and other countries if you don't like the law work to change it. If you just bitch and complain it means nothing (except you're a looser).
3) They don't read the license. For software this is simple. If you can obtain it for free and the license says its free, fine... just follow the license for distribution rights. If you had to buy it or the license says you have to buy it don't give away copies (reselling the original is ok). Moves/tv shows etc. "credits" and usually the credits have a copyright statement. This usually tells you that the owner owns it and users can't just take it and resell/give it away.
4) For software, this is my favorite... "Software should be free, damn the copyright, patents and licenses!" While I enjoy using GPL, BSD and Apache style license (as well as others that give away for free) I also write software for a job. When you steal software its like stealing a car... it costs to design, assemble and produce so where the @#@# do people get off thinking it should all be free? In the case of the GPL and other free license the auther decided to be nice and give the software away. With other software (MS, Oracle, WinRar, etc..) the author spent time, money and effort to bring you applications you use and for the most part enjoy. They need to eat and you need the software so like buying a car, you should buy the software. I can go on and on about this.. but as most of us "experienced users/engineers" know Linux and most popular GPL licensed projects would be nowhere today with out some sort of income. While the software can be obtained for free people have been paid to work on it or have gained financially from using it (hmm, does this server run on Apache? Does it host adds?).
Anyway enough of my rant...
Do you work for the MPAA or the RIAA? | |
| | | juniorx
join:2006-02-05
St John'S, NL | Re: Notice of Claim of Copyright Infringement it is estimated that 200 million people fileshare at any given time. for those posting "don't share copyrighted material", are you part of the minority or is it Hypocrisy? | |
|
jbob
Reach Out and Touch Someone
Premium
join:2004-04-26
Little Rock, AR | Kaltes brings up a good point in this case. Why is "Will and Grace" an issue? It is a show broadcast over free tv airwaves. It's not like this is a movie or a for fee event. Is it an issue simply because it is void of commercials? | |
| bigpoppa206
join:2005-03-29
Seattle, WA
| Well, you are wrong, they are not 'free' TV airwaves. That program is owned by someone and they have the right to say how it is viewed or broadcast. Now they already allow you the option to record it yourself by a VCR or DVR for your personal use, but that does not automatically allow you to get a copy through a P2P network. Delete the file and that's the end of it. Also, learn how to use the newsgroups as a previous poster mentioned. | |
| | 
mdmaddox
Premium
join:2002-12-29
Federal Way, WA | Re: Notice of Claim of Copyright Infringement I have just one point when you say
"Now they already allow you the option to record it yourself by a VCR or DVR for your personal use"
Does They = Program owners?
or does They = The U.S. Court System?
My vote is with the Court. | |
| | | Davemaster
Premium
join:2006-03-02
Marietta, GA
| Re: Notice of Claim of Copyright Infringement said by mdmaddox :I have just one point when you say "Now they already allow you the option to record it yourself by a VCR or DVR for your personal use" Does They = Program owners? or does They = The U.S. Court System? My vote is with the Court. It was the US Supreme court in a 1984 decision for consumers | |
| |
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| said by bigpoppa206 :but that does not automatically allow you to get a copy through a P2P network. Change "get" to "distribute" and I'll agree with you on that point.
--
He that winna lout an lift a preen wull nivver be warth a groat. | |
| | | MrRuckus
join:2004-01-30
Portland, OR
| Re: Notice of Claim of Copyright Infringement said by Combat Chuck :said by bigpoppa206 :but that does not automatically allow you to get a copy through a P2P network. Change "get" to "distribute" and I'll agree with you on that point. Very well said. Dont distribute and your fine. I personally stay away from P2P and bit. As stated numerous times, newsgroups and IRC will get you the same thing without you having to upload a thing.
They only want the distributors, torrents and P2P work because most who use them dont set the software accordingly and upload while they download without their knowledge. | |
| | gallowsroad
join:2004-08-09
Tulsa, OK
| said by bigpoppa206 :Well, you are wrong, they are not 'free' TV airwaves. In fact, they are. The public, in the form of government, grants license for broadcast companies to use those airwaves, but they most certainly cannot claim any ownership.
Content is another matter.
--
Too many cameras and not enough food - this is what we've seen. | |
| 
USA Zombie
Premium
join:2002-08-22
Seattle, WA | After looking at the first post it seems to me the person was running a tracker. | |
| |
jap
Premium
join:2003-08-10
038xx
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Notice of Claim of Copyright Infringement said by USA Zombie :After looking at the first post it seems to me the person was running a tracker. No, that letter is for a single infraction. | |
| 
thender2
Glamour Profession
Premium
join:2004-05-16
Staten Island, NY | said by mario620 :
What should I do about it?
Learn how to use usenet and IRC.  | |
| Clever Name
Premium
join:2005-05-06
Davenport, IA
| I think owning a wireless router and claiming you're too ignorant to secure it properly would be a fairly good alibi. Some VERY evil copyright infringer must have hijacked my wireless connection and downloaded that horrible tv show.  | |
| | slaskoske
join:2006-03-24
Lancaster, PA
| Re: Notice of Claim of Copyright Infringement said by Clever Name :I think owning a wireless router and claiming you're too ignorant to secure it properly would be a fairly good alibi. Some VERY evil copyright infringer must have hijacked my wireless connection and downloaded that horrible tv show. It's no alibi at all. If you run the network and someone uses it to do something illegal, you may be held liable under the law. Secondly, they may try to subpoena logs from your router. If you are skilled enough to delete those logs yet supposedly too stupid to set up security, what is the court supposed to think? | |
| DVOOR8
join:2001-12-24
USA
·Optimum Online
| said by mario620 :Changed IP addy's just to be safe. That does nothing, comcast know who you are no matter what you do withyour IP. | |
| | 
Grail Knight
Who Dares Wins
Premium
join:2003-05-31 | Re: Notice of Claim of Copyright Infringement He meant he changed his IP Address in the letter Comcast sent him before he posted it here. | |
| | | DVOOR8
join:2001-12-24
USA
·Optimum Online
| Re: Notice of Claim of Copyright Infringement said by Grail Knight :He meant he changed his IP Address in the letter Comcast sent him before he posted it here. Ahhhhhhhh, I see. | |
| cjb
join:2001-10-11
Washington, DC | Try the peer guardian plug-in | |
| | 
manfmmd
Premium
join:2003-01-14
Earth
clubs:
1 edit | Re: Notice of Claim of Copyright Infringement Peer Guardian is worthless, for the most part. All that these companies need to do is install a few DSL lines (DHCP) into their facilities and the Peer Guardian IP Lists instantly become 95% useless. | |
| | | cjb
join:2001-10-11
Washington, DC
| Re: Notice of Claim of Copyright Infringement said by manfmmd :Peer Guardian is worthless, for the most part. All that these companies need to do is install a few DSL lines (DHCP) into their facilities and the Peer Guardian IP Lists instantly become 95% useless. better than nothing | |
| | | 
LaserjetXX
join:2004-03-13
Waterford, MI | I seriously doubt that these companies will install seperate DSL lines in their facilities. There is much more "lower hanging fruit" to be had than dealing with a few people running IP block lists. | |
| | | |
manfmmd
Premium
join:2003-01-14
Earth
clubs:
| Re: Notice of Claim of Copyright Infringement Either way Peer Guardian provides a false sense of security and is easily circumvented. These companies can also use TOR to get around Peer Guardian... There are many ways to get around Peer Guardian.
--
huh? | AIM | Utopia does not exist. | |
|
NelsonMuntz2
@208.17.x.x | HA-HA! You got caught. Will and Grace no less.:D | |
| | | (topic locked) | |
|
·