CableTool
Poorly Representing MYSELF.
Premium
join:2004-11-12
| reply to Schwinn555
Re: Comcast is spying on me!
said by Schwinn555  :Yes it is clear what has happened. Comcast has agreed to let people have access to your files so they can see what your downloading and looking at. There are still ISP's that refuse to share private info Comcast isn't one of them. Just one of a long list of reasons not to use Comcast. 
No where does it say Comcast shared ANY info. Comcast was contacted about a particular IP. Comcast contaced that IP's account and let them know about the issue. Now if they were contacted by the "plantiff" then you could say Comcast willingly gave that information up.
Read the letter again. Its stated pretty clearly.
--
*´*)
¸.•´¸.•*') ¸.•*.
(¸.•´ (¸.•'
Technicians -Unplugged |
|
Vamp
5c077
Premium
join:2003-01-28
MD
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to netgear
said by netgear :said by Vamp :Pay for a premium newsgroup service and never have to worry about this. Never is a very long time. All legitimate "premium" newsgroup services must adhere to the law, as well, and that is as it should be. » www.giganews.com/legal/dmca.html Yes, but you are forgetting a few things... MPAA/RIAA go after the people that share/upload the content. Unless what you are downloading is illegal in a way other than copyright, there wont be any investigations to see who downloaded it. |
|
hoyleysox
join:2003-11-07
Long Beach, CA
 ·Cox HSI
·Time Warner Cable
1 edit | reply to NormanS
They cannot tell what COMPUTER was used to transfer the files, they can only tell what IP address. If someone freeloads off your wifi, you and the freeloader share the same IP address.
It wasn't your fault, it was probably the neighbor who has had the pringles can sticking out his window towards your residence. Suggest they sue the router manufacturer for 'aiding and abetting' an accomplice.  Tell them you'll set a password on your router and it will never happen again.  |
|
netgear
Restless Native
Premium
join:1999-12-20
Arlington, TX
 ·AT&T DSL Service
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Vamp
Actually, I didn't forget anything. In fact, I didn't even mention any of the issues you've now broached, because they don't apply to my original statement.
Whether you intended to or not, you made it sound as though subscribing to a premium newsgroup service will provide some form of protection from the DMCA. That is not true, and you may have given some people a false sense of security.
That said, I see the point you're trying to make regarding the distinction between sharing/uploading and downloading. |
|
TOPDAWG
Premium
join:2005-04-27
Midland, ON | reply to CableTool
I think comcast was nice in this myself. They could have just killed his account. |
|
netgear
Restless Native
Premium
join:1999-12-20
Arlington, TX | No kidding. They are being more than fair. As warnings go, that letter was downright friendly. |
|
TOPDAWG
Premium
join:2005-04-27
Midland, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| He should come to Canada and see how internet is here. You got caps companies blocking ports. I mean really I liked comcast when I as in the states.
I did not read whole thread did he admit downloading the movie? If so he has nothing to cry about. I'd just be happy I was not sued or my internet was not cut off. |
|
MrBradTX
join:2001-05-23
Carrollton, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by TOPDAWG :I did not read whole thread did he admit downloading the movie? In a sideways sort of way, yes.
I'm repeatedly taken aback by the lengths to which people will go to justify their wrong behavior. |
|
DMS1
join:2005-04-06
Carrollton, TX | reply to triggz
Notice that, as is always the case with moaners like this, the OP (who has only made two posts in his eight months of membership) has vanished without a trace. |
|
Fountainhead
Premium
join:2003-10-25
New York, NY
clubs: | Maybe the evil Comcast corporation has shut off his broadband and eliminated his constitutional right to steal materials off the internet.
--
It's all part of my rock and roll fantasy |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to K Patterson
Yah but...I expect the defense could make a pretty decent stand on the fact that the complainant has made the material available at no charge, of their own free will.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to hoyleysox
However the matter would play out in court, or with Comcast, the RIAA/MPAA will go after that IP address. With Comcast, it is a TOS violation, and you are responsible for securing your connection. If Comcast determines that you are unable, or unwilling to secure the connection, and thus, are exposing them to litigation by the RIAA/MPAA, they (Comcast) will cover their ass; even if it means losing a customer. Hey, which is the greater loss, a $42.95 per month Internet customer, or a $150,000 litigation?
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
DreamWraith
Premium
join:2004-04-07
Mount Vernon, WA | reply to triggz
Jesus. If you are going to run around downloading files illegally, at least have the common sense to use PeerGuardian. »phoenixlabs.org/pg2/ |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| I never knew it was illegal to download files. Copyright is about controlling distribution (uploading) of the intellectual property of the producer.
PeerGuardian is of dubious utility. If they miss one RIAA/MPAA IP address, and one of their agents uses that missed IP address to access your shared files, and they find one of their properties in one of your folders, you are toast.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
gallowsroad
join:2004-08-09
Tulsa, OK
| reply to netgear
said by netgear :Whether you intended to or not, you made it sound as though subscribing to a premium newsgroup service will provide some form of protection from the DMCA. That is not true, and you may have given some people a false sense of security. That said, I see the point you're trying to make regarding the distinction between sharing/uploading and downloading. There may be safety in downloading from Newsgroups for the time being, and uploading as well. News group content is nowhere and everywhere at once, and directly involves ISP's in a different manner than P2P does. It can be argued that any ISP that runs a news server carrying binary copies of a film or CD is not only allowing transmission of copyright infringed material but is hosting it as well.
The MPAA and RIAA have so far avoided getting into these very murky, and very expensive waters, because it will require very intrusive data gathering to prove their case.
It is one thing to threaten fifteen year old punks and deaf grandma's who don't even own a computer (doh!); it is quite another to take on major ISPs over issues of hosting and distribution. That would be a protracted and expensive fight, and the outcome is very uncertain. I suspect it will also be the last thing the associations do in this fight because of the expense and the potential precedents that might be set.
--
Ha ha haaaaaaa....ever get the feeling you've been cheated?
- John Lydon, last Sex Pistols show |
|
netgear
Restless Native
Premium
join:1999-12-20
Arlington, TX
·AT&T DSL Service
·RoadRunner Cable
2 edits | Good points. My concern is the potential for a false sense of security.
[edit]
Don't get me wrong... I don't care to protect any thieves. But, some people reading these forums have absolutely no clue as to what they're dealing with. They need to realize they can't steal songs/whatever and expect to be protected by a "premium newsgroup service." They will get nailed. |
|
hoyleysox
join:2003-11-07
Long Beach, CA
·Cox HSI
·Time Warner Cable
| reply to NormanS
I grant that the person who carries an IP address that was used to transfer the 'bits and bytes of contraband' is the person that the MPAA/RIAA will go after and that person is in for a hassle. However, it will be up to the court to determine if the person who had the IP address committed the 'crime.' There is not enough evidence to prove that the the data came from any particular person's computer.
If someone leave their car unlocked and someone steals it and uses it to rob a bank, the person who owns the car can claim that they had nothing to do with the robbery. |
|
hamman_4
Premium
join:2003-04-10
96003-6602
| reply to netgear
Interesting enough, a similiar situation occurred on my account with another ISP however it had nothing to do with what I was doing myself. That is a story all in itself.
The letter I received from the ISP did contain the following clause which I thought might be worth sharing in this particular case.
"It is possible that this activity has occurred without your permission or knowledge by an unauthorized user, a minor who may not fully understand the copyright laws, or even as a result of a computer virus. However, as a GENERIC Internet account owner, you can be held liable for this activity."
The Generic ISP actually had received a complaint from the place below with this particular remark. Since you own this IP address, we request that you immediately do the following:
1) Disable access to the individual who has engaged in the conduct described above; and
2) Take appropriate action against the account holder under your Abuse Policy/Terms of Service Agreement.
Director, Anti-Piracy Internet Operations
Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.
4000 Warner Blvd.
Burbank, CA 91522
818.954.6274 â?" phone
818.954.7898 â?" fax
X â?" email
In which they had no choice but to forward a standard letter similiar to the one the comcast customer received.
Obviously they only gave me a warning and never shut off my account but the point is still the same, the distribution, whether sending or receiving, of unauthorized copies of copyrighted motion pictures constitutes copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, Title 17 United States Code Section 106(3). This conduct may also violate the laws of other countries, international law, and/or treaty obligations.
At the time the incident occurred, I had just installed my network and had not made it "secure". I did not have any P2P or any other type software that will allow any sort of activity of this nature on any of the computers that I had connected to my network. Since I made my network secure and have software that allows me to monitor who is connected to it at any given time I can rest easy knowing that I will not receive these types of letters again.
Good luck. |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
1 edit | reply to hoyleysox
But the RIAA/MPAA is going after civil litigation. There is a different level of proof ("preponderance of evidence" vs. "beyond a reasonable doubt") in civil cases.
More likely, though, as it is less expensive, would be repeated complaints to Comcast. How many complaints before Comcast takes action. There is even less need of proof for taking a TOS action against a customer.
Originally, the RIAA/MPAA was trying to obtain information from the ISPs under a DMCA "Form Subpoena"; but, initially, SBC and Verizon refused to comply with those subpoenas. The RIAA took them to court, and won. I don't recall if SBC was a part of the appeal, or they caved (I think that they caved), but Verizon filed an appeal, and won.
The purpose of the DMCA "Form Subpoena" was to get customer information so the RIAA/MPAA could extort settlements from alleged infringers. The requirement to obtain a real subpoena, under judicial supervision, has raised the bar on the RIAA/MPAA; they seem more inclined to seek redress from the ISPs, by way of TOS actions.
That should be small comfort to those who download via P2P. Getting an ISP to shut down a customer account is probably a lot easier (and cheaper) than taking that customer to court.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
gallowsroad
join:2004-08-09
Tulsa, OK
| reply to netgear
There is no difference between an ISP run News Group service and a premium one except far faster download speeds and longer binary retention for the paid service. If anything, when it comes to safety, you are probably better off using only your ISPs news groups - the nature of Usenet makes it very difficult to trace who is uploading, and far harder to determine who is downloading files.
More importantly, without a *viable* subpoena, no ISP will give up this sort of information because it opens a huge can of worms.
Sooner or later this will come to some sort of head in the form of a spate of lawsuits between the RIAA/MPAA on one side and major ISPs on the other.
In the end, gathering and/or distributing copyright infringed material is illegal and if/when you are caught, the penalties could, as we say in the old country, really suck ass.
--
Ha ha haaaaaaa....ever get the feeling you've been cheated?
- John Lydon, last Sex Pistols show |
|
