 tpkatl
join:2009-11-16
Dacula, GA | Let the lawsuit derby begin As soon as people start to get these notices - and in Cablevision's case - pull the plug, the lawsuits against the ISPs will begin.
Theft by taking is a good one. Guilt before innocence is another.
Do the ISPs have any idea what these lawsuits will cost them? I have no real idea, but I have the feeling it will be immense. | |
|
 |  MxxCon
join:1999-11-19
Brooklyn, NY | Re: Let the lawsuit derby begin said by tpkatl:Do the ISPs have any idea what these lawsuits will cost them? I have no real idea, but I have the feeling it will be immense. And all of it will be paid by their customers. 
--
[Sig removed by Administrator: signature can not exceed 20GB] | |
|
| | | | Re: Let the lawsuit derby begin said by MxxCon:said by tpkatl:Do the ISPs have any idea what these lawsuits will cost them? I have no real idea, but I have the feeling it will be immense. And all of it will be paid by their customers. Customers who stay with such isp's deserve all the crap they get. It's like staying with at&t even though it's common knowledge they are spying on you. | |
|
| | | MxxCon
join:1999-11-19
Brooklyn, NY | Re: Let the lawsuit derby begin said by EdmundGerber:said by MxxCon:said by tpkatl:Do the ISPs have any idea what these lawsuits will cost them? I have no real idea, but I have the feeling it will be immense. And all of it will be paid by their customers. Customers who stay with such isp's deserve all the crap they get. It's like staying with at&t even though it's common knowledge they are spying on you. You are saying that as if there's a competition in this marketplace where you can go to another provide that doesn't do this.
For many people CV is the only viable option. I don't have any other cable company in my building. I don't have fios and the best I can get is 768kbit dsl. And even if I could switch, VZ are just as bad dicks and TW are not better either.
--
[Sig removed by Administrator: signature can not exceed 20GB] | |
|
|  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | said by tpkatl:Do the ISPs have any idea what these lawsuits will cost them? I have no real idea, but I have the feeling it will be immense.
I expect the lawsuits will get nowhere. The USSC has already ratified the ability of companies to prevent "class action" lawsuits in their TOS. Yes, individuals can sue(say in small claims court), but it will be time consuming and most users won't be bothered.
--
I will be perfectly happy if the budget cuts specified in the Budget Control Act go into effect. 3 cheers for the sequester. Take the money from the drunken federal spenders. | |
|
| | Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Let the lawsuit derby begin said by Linklist:I expect the lawsuits will get nowhere. The USSC has already ratified the ability of companies to prevent "class action" lawsuits in their TOS. Yes, individuals can sue(say in small claims court), but it will be time consuming and most users won't be bothered.
There will be some who sue but the thing that will hurt CV's shareholders are the people who have an alternative to CV and drop them like a rock. The free market has spoken! /slaps gong | |
|
| | Reviews:
 ·Charter
| said by Linklist:I expect the lawsuits will get nowhere. The USSC has already ratified the ability of companies to prevent "class action" lawsuits in their TOS. Yes, individuals can sue(say in small claims court), but it will be time consuming and most users won't be bothered.
I suspect the ISP will not be sued, but the company that is sending out the alerts. the CCI will get sued into submission, because the program raises a ton of red flags as to its actual legality. Add on top of that, the company they(the CCI) hired to monitor P2P networks is MediaSentry, whos evidence was just ruled in several courts that it is not fit for court, since it only identifies the household, and not he actual offender, I don't think the CCI can legally send out DMCA notice(thats what these things really are, and if they arent, they will get sued to shit really fast) on evidence they cannot even submit to the court, let alone send it out on a private program like this. I suspect a creative lawyer will get the law machine going against CCI for harassment and false accusations, and add on top of that the fact that the copyright holders probably do not intend to sue anyone over it(since its now extremely costly, look at jammie thomas, their lawyers supposedly cost 295000, plus the judgement against her, and guess what, she filed bankruptcy and its all gone, for the most part, and they got nothing). I think the CCI will get sued for harassment in several states where things like this are outlawed already. If you send legal threats, you better be able and willing to follow up, else, like in my home state, you are liable for harassment and other civil and potentially criminal offenses. | |
|
| | | My first question to my isp would be, is my bill up to date? My next question would be, would you like to retain me as a customer? I don't care about contracts, EULA's or whatever. The bottom line is, I pay money for a service and I expect that service to be provided. It comes down to cold hard cash, regardless of the country. Besides, just about everything you want to watch is on youtube or google video these days. Comcast should tell anyone that serves them with such a notice, that harassing, threatening, or otherwise trying to solicit money from their customers cannot and will not be tolerated. That would be like me walking into a store and watching a movie on one of their display TV sets and being forced to pay because I watched something that was copyrighted.
Ridiculous. The saying money talks is indeed true. Since it was ruled that an IP address cannot be used to positively identify a person, and it would be extremely hard to prove that said customer downloaded copyrighted content without physically examining the customer's computer system, I doubt the RIAA etc. has enough manpower to examine every single computer system for every notice it sends out. Not that it would happen mind you... Besides, how many places have free wifi now? Starbucks? McDonalds? Barnes & Noble? Any hotel chain? MAC addresses are also easily spoofed so there goes that idea too. Not to mention the many ways that such popups can be blocked. The MPAA and RIAA are not God, and I'd love to see a large cable system like Comcast tell them exactly what I said above. Stay out of our business. Comcast should sue THEM for harrassment.  As I said, when it comes down to it, money talks, and talks quite loudly. | |
|
| | | Guilt before innocence? How many strikes would be fair? A 20 strike program? Time for consumers to become educated and properly secure their routers, and know what their users are doing. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Let the lawsuit derby begin I would suggest that assuming any guilt before successful criminal prosecution of someone in a court of law is assuming guilt.
This nation was built on the principle of assuming innocence at all times unless proven otherwise, but it's not surprising that this is falling into the eternal abyss when we have a president and Congress that feels it's ok to break all other sorts of laws on their own too.
--
The only difference between Bush and Obama is the group they're wasting our taxpayer money on. It's time to elect responsible legislators. | |
|
| Reviews:
 ·Frontier Communi..
| said by tpkatl:Guilt before innocence is another. This is a transaction between private parties, not a criminal action, or even a civil one for that matter. Your ISP is taking action based on the reports of a third party. It is no different than severing your connection, blocking ports, or taking other action based on a report that your IP address was spamming, spreading malware, or hacking. The evidence in both cases is exactly the same, an IP address, a timestamp, and the unverified word of a third party.
This is such a non-issue it's not even funny. There are not going to be massive amounts of false positives. The real pirates won't even be impacted, they'll just use VPNs, private trackers, or pirate through lesser known methods like IRC. The real objective here is to scare parents into controlling the teenagers that are responsible for the overwhelming majority of consumer piracy.
Do I like this? No. Is it better than "John Doe" civil suits and oppressive Federal Legislation that would likely run afoul of the Constitution? Absolutely. | |
|
|  cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | And what will the lawsuits be for? | |
|
| | | The ISP doesn't have to prove anything. They're not law enforcement. And they can refuse to do business with anyone they wish. The courts would agree with that. So try suing them all you want. | |
|
| | Perfect There is no way anything can go wrong. I'd like to hear the corporate shills defend this... | |
|
|  skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 | Re: Perfect Don't worry...just give them time to DL their talking points. | |
|
| | slckusrPremium
join:2003-03-17
Maumee, OH
kudos:1 | Re: Perfect If your passing bad checks through the bank do they not have the right to cut your account off? | |
|
| | | Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Perfect said by slckusr:If your passing bad checks through the bank do they not have the right to cut your account off?
No, you get arrested because the bank calls the police and has you arrested and charged with a crime. If you're guilty, then it will be found out in court, if by some chance you're not then you have a chance to defend yourself. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Perfect Either way (guilty or innocent) the bank could decide not to continue doing business with you.... | |
|
| | | | | Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Perfect said by Crookshanks:Either way (guilty or innocent) the bank could decide not to continue doing business with you....
and vice-versa. | |
|
| | | | | | | said by Crookshanks:Either way (guilty or innocent) the bank could decide not to continue doing business with you....
That's exactly what customers will say. Fuck these few ISP's - time to make an independent ISP VERY WEALTHY..... | |
|
| | | | said by skeechan:Don't worry...just give them time to DL their talking points.
It's still early in the morning. My boss at the ISPAA is still bl..., I mean having a conversation with several senators. When they're done, she'll review this article then email my talking points. | |
|
| me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | So its wrong for a company to turn off the service of someone who used said service to break the law? | |
|
| | | | Re: Perfect said by me1212:So its wrong for a company to turn off the service of someone who used said service to break the law?
Proof of guilt must first be found. | |
|
| | Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX | said by me1212:So its wrong for a company to turn off the service of someone who used said service to break the law?
That's a good one. So you believe you have never infringed copyright? | |
|
| | Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| said by me1212:So its wrong for a company to turn off the service of someone who used said service to break the law?
If a law was broken, then it is for a court to decide innocence or guilt - not a unilateral decision by a private corporation with no chance for a customer to defend themselves. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Perfect Glad there's some folks who still adhere to logic around these parts. | |
|
| | | Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
| With very few exceptions a private corporation is allowed to refuse to do business with anyone for any reason. The only real exception codified into law is the prohibition against certain businesses discriminating against protected classes, i.e., a hotel that declines to do business with black people. | |
|
| | | cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | said by serge87:If a law was broken, then it is for a court to decide innocence or guilt - not a unilateral decision by a private corporation with no chance for a customer to defend themselves.
Presuming a typical residential internet connection, you're internet service provides you service as part of a private transaction between you and the ISP. Them providing the service to you is contingent on their ToS and/or AUP. They are not denying you service based on, or in anyway infringing on, your guaranteed protected rights (race, gender, religion, disability, etc).
Just like a bar can refuse service to an individual dressed in gang "colors", or a night club can kick out a drunk, an ISP generally can discontinue your service if they thing you are negatively impacting their business. The ISP refusing to provide service isn't a matter of guilt or innocence. They are protecting their interests. | |
|
bgraham
join:2001-03-15
Smithtown, NY | Cutting of Your Internet Question If Cablevision cuts off your internet and you have the Cablevision VOIP phone, are they going to cut off your phone as well? | |
|
|  Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | Re: Cutting of Your Internet Question I can see that getting ugly very quickly.. especially if it's an emergency call. | |
|
| |
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
kudos:1 Reviews:
·CenturyLink
·Comcast
·Embarq Now Centu..
| Why can't the customer challange first notice at no cost. How does Cablevisions management expect a customer that receives a first notice determine if the notice is a false positive or if some visitor was seeding, if they cannot challenge the first notice. How would the average customer be able to figure that out. | |
|
| | | Re: Why can't the customer challange first notice at no cost. Where did you read that they turn you off on strike 1? | |
|
| |  XiodenPremium
join:2008-06-10
Monticello, NY
kudos:1 | Re: Why can't the customer challange first notice at no cost. Why should they have to wait to be shut off to contest the notice? | |
|
| | do the strikes reset on false positives? i am wondering what happens if after a challenge to a false positive, i really hope that after paying $35 and defending myself the strike remains on my record so i can get past the sixth strike where 'nothing more happens' if this is the case than i believe everyone should thrive to get six strikes as soon as possible.
of course it may not work this way and they may reset the strikes if we win a challenge for a false positive result keeping everyone in the strikes system. | |
|
 TrueAudio192khzPremium
join:2002-02-24
Richmond, CA | Sad state of affairs Since when is it the job of an ISP to enforce the copyright laws? They aren't the police or judges. We have systems put in place to enforce copyright laws, but it seems that want to bypass those and make up their own rules and call themselves the intertnet police as well. Sure, you pay for a connection to the internet and I'm sure there's some questionable legal jargon in your contract regarding this and how they can terminate your connection for copyright material. But still, way out of line.
Maybe we should ban the youtube viewers and uploaders out there too. That site has more copyrighted material then any other site on the internet. But that seems to be alright, cause we can't go on without our videos, can we? No, its just certain stuff isn't "Okay". Hypocritical garbage is what I'm reading here. Not that I'm for Pirating content, but this just goes beyond what we stand for and how things are supposed to operate in America, or at least what we used to stand for. I don't even know this country anymore. Collectively, the whole place has losts its mind. | |
|
| | dump dump them they will cry what are we high speed drug addicts | |
|
| | Why should I care? Can someone help me understand why I should care?
• I don't download copyright material that I have not purchased.
• I've taught my kids to purchase vs "take" and if they break the rules, they suffer the consequences
• If something is "over priced" I don't buy it
• Six strikes seems to be more than fair notice with capabilities to dispute errors.
Why is this such a big deal? | |
|
|
See 11 replies to this post |
|
| | It's a big deal said by devnuller:Can someone help me understand why I should care?
Why is this such a big deal?
It's a big deal because they've made themselves self-proclaimed judges and jury of the internet. Corporations and business have no business in this department. They aren't in the business to uphold laws, They are in the business of providing you with a connection to the internet, not deciding whats right or wrong in the world of the internet. We have courts for this.
There's probably a nice pay check for them in their somewhere, otherwise it isn't in their best interest to even humor the idea of dealing with this at all. Someones getting paid that almighty dollar and money talks.
But go ahead and keep playing stupid. Soon you wont have any rights because "Why should you care?" It doesn't affect you at this immediate time because you're a goody toe shoes. | |
|
DodgePremium
join:2002-11-27 | 0 to 6 strikes (and no internet) in 5 seconds Copyright holder sends 6 notices on a single IP in rapid succession. Cablevision receives them one by one and racks up 6 strikes immediately cutting off your internet. How is this not open to abuse? | |
|
| | wow You guys are picky. Would you rather them just report you to the police or the FBI? @4 hours of no internet is way better then a huge fine.
Also cable internet is not a right its a privalege. You do not complain about your license getting taken away if you are caught doing too much over the limit do you?
Heck cable can shut off your service for any reason they want since its not electric or water.
I would rather have my internet shutoff then reported to the police or fbi and have a $66k or higher judgement levied against me. | |
|
SukunaiPremium
join:2008-05-07
kudos:1 Reviews:
·ELECTRONICBOX
·TekSavvy DSL
| Well I wonder, how many customers will they need to lose.... If I pay out X dollars for an internet service, and because of retarded laws invented by the spoiled brat Hollywood thugs, it gets cut off, I am unlikely to stick around.
I can here it now, mass cancellations from people not impressed with being told it is ok to pay for the service, but don't expect to get the service you paid for if they feel you have committed an unproven crime.
I am not going to leap to conclusions, but, I suspect a LOT of people might end up cancelling and I suspect a lot of money might be lost to ISPs if this idiocy gets out of hand.
We all KNOW they can't tell who exactly is at the end of an IP address in a manner that will stand up in anyone's idea of a court.
Is it that there are simply that many sheeple in the market place, that they think they can just unilaterally steal from people (which is what it comes down to if you buy service and they take it back from you) and they won't suffer any ill effects from randomly accusing people out of hand? | |
|
| | IP Tracking Static&DHCP Since most internet users do not have a static IP address; are subpoena requests from the Hollywood studios even valid? The suits will not be able to determine if all of the complaints from an IP are from one single user unless the ISP releases that data. I'm curious how the entire DMCA process, legal proceedings, and etc will turn out if pirates force change the IP address every time they receive a complaint. ISP's typically wont change your IP address upon request, but it is not difficult to change your MAC address and force it to occur anyway. | |
|
| | and here it goes.. will the copyright industry $ PAY $ the isp's for the lost revenue. can of worms (profits) indeed?
don't see any way isp's won't be impacted financially as a loss in revenue. not a good time to buy cable company, and telecom stocks. | |
|
|
|
·