 |  | | | | | | | | | 
Jetoni
Premium
join:2001-04-18
West Springfield, MA
1 edit | Re: eff the riaa I LOL-ed! Epic fail! | |
| ZZink
join:2002-06-16
Canada | Money? I wonder how much RIAA is paying them to go along with this. I mean when they disconnect users they loose money. | |
| | 
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ | Re: Money? Maybe the RIAA is just promising they won't sue. | |
| | | nitzan
Premium,VIP
join:2008-02-27
 ·ViaTalk
 ·Comcast
| Re: Money? said by Eat Me  :Maybe the RIAA is just promising they won't sue. They can't sue anyway.
I mean, they can sue, but they can't win due to safe harbor laws in place. Not to mention they wouldn't want to get on the ISP industry's bad side as they could just tell them to F*** off like they really should have years ago. If anyone can actually pass new laws it is Verizon and AT&T - not RIAA. | |
| | 
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| I wonder about what is behind the voluntary compliance from many of the ISP's. In the situation with the ISP in Ireland, they were forced to comply as part of a deal that was made after losing a decision in the courts about providing user information to the RIAA.
I suspect that perhaps there has been discussion about providing exclusive content of the RIAA's copyrighted material to the ISP's. The ISP's are always looking for ways to offer content so they don't simply become a dumb pipe provider. It's my opinion that keeping the content creators separate from the content distributors is in the consumer's best interest.
It's the same thing we see with any media distributor. For TV, the people that make the shows own the stations, and the magazines, and the newspapers, and the books. Perhaps the ISP's are simply looking for a way to beef-up their portals. This might be the first step in a relationship that will ultimately result in Comcast and AT&T being able to provide music from the RIAA's extensive library as part of their service. Naturally the cost would be included in every customer's bill. And this is ultimately what the RIAA has admittedly said that they are trying to accomplish. A money train that acts like a value-added gift on the surface, but is more of an extortion fee in reality. | |
| | | 
badtrip
East Bay
Premium
join:2004-03-20
Albany, CA
 ·Unwired Ltd
·Comcast
| Re: Money? Ive said it before and I'll say it again. I'd bet that the RIAA has pays a sum to the ISP on a per-user disconnected basis.
I would guess that the sum the RIAA pays the ISPs is roughly the cost to process the cancellation of the user as well as some money to compensate the ISP for "lost income due to the cancellation".
Corporations do not do each other favors, period. | |
| 
hayabusa3303
Over 200 mph
Premium
join:2005-06-29
clubs: | Epic fail . | |
| | | 
tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
·Comcast
1 edit | Re: It was a Linux ISO right? said by Matt : Regardless, I do think this process needs transparency and I don't think the copyright holders nor the service providers should be responsible for determining who has actually committed a violation. Actually the copyright holders are the ones to determine who MAY have violated their IP. and if they should defend their copyright.
(here's where the current process goes wrong
They should request user info from the ISP (who should refuse, due to customer privacy rights). The copyright holders then should begin a discovery process ( seek a "john Doe" warrant from a court to compel the ISP to release the info, as well as documentation/proof That the account holder was in fact in possession and control of the equipment at the time. The ISP could then release the info, and notify the customer that they had done so under court order.
The alternative would be for the copyright holders to provide a cease and desist letter which the ISP should be obligated to pass on Anonymously ie copyright holders do not receive customer info (According to the RIAA's most users if guilty, would stop at this point, no need to pursue it further)
All of this at the copyright holders expense (including court costs, comcast's expenses for forwarding the letter or providing documentation for any court processes) .
Only then could they return to civil court to pursue the ALLEGED violator.
The should not have any special power of subpoena, special rules of discovery, or other rights over and above those of a normal business pursuing a person who had in some way damaged/ misused, or misappropriated goods or services of that company.
Failures or errors in the discovery process, would of course open the way for countersuits againist the copyright holders and/or the ISP depending on where the error lay.
repeated abuse of the court process could open the way for fines againist those parties. | |
| | | | | 
Matt
Gone playing Dragon Age Origins
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
 ·North State Commun..
| Re: It was a Linux ISO right? said by KrK :said by Matt :I'm sorry, but without going all psychoanalysis on this quote, I don't believe this guy. Didn't read further? He was 100% innocent. The Cable modem MAC address that Comcast used to identify him as the "Cadillac Records" torrent downloader had been previously returned to Comcast and redeployed to someone else. Yet he got the Copyright violation notice. I did read further, I even read his original blog post. I still don't believe him. | |
| | | | | | 
hw
@myvzw.com
| I'm sorry, but without going all psychoanalysis on this quote, I don't believe this guy. Believe it. I mean, HE might be BS'ing but I've had the same thing happen and I'm not joking. I got shut down like 4 months ago by Mediacom.. I WAS torrenting my ass off (and not using anything like IP blocklists, protocol encryption, etc.) so, yeah, I was really not too surprised. I didn't get a mailed notice but was told over the phone what it was for specifically. I got shut off again a month later, despite running absolutely no torrents (etc.) of any kind. I commented to the rep that I hadn't done anything, I guessed it crossed in the mail and they turned it back on. I didn't ask what it was for because I did assume it was just from earlier, but I wonder now. I got shut off AGAIN like 2 weeks ago, was supposed to be mailed some form and the notice of what it was about. This mail kept not showing up so I came into the office. They faxed a basically "Don't do it again" form (I guess it's REALLY "4 strikes"...) I signed it since it's worded pretty neutrally and canceled by internet service on the spot as well (I already have an aircard so the cable was mainly for umm, large files). When I got home my mail from them had FINALLY arrived.
The "infringement" was for wrestling.. I guarantee you I don't watch (or download, or more importantly upload..) wrestling. And the IP address was wrong, I have a wtmp log to prove it, going back about a month and a half.
I didn't go back in to find out if my OTHER shutoffs were even for me or not..  But it seems at least some cable co's are indeed mailing out mistaken notices.
I would not be surprised by the suggestion of problems due to tracking by cable modem MAC. I worked as a phone rep at a cable co once. I'm sure the billing systems vary a lot.. but on that one, let me tell you, putting the internet service billing code was easy. Putting the modem on the account, or exchanging one for another? Harder than it should have been. If someone was moving or had moved and wanted to move service? I'd just transfer the call, it was damn near impossible to not "lose" the modem in the system.
I don't think the copyright holders nor the service providers should be responsible for determining who has actually committed a violation. Well, OK but they will NOT have happy customers if they just start randomly cutting off people's connections, which they WILL do if they have broken IP-tracking systems. | |
|
SueTheBastards
|  Not Right.
| |
| | 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: Not Right. I agree... live by the sword = die by the sword.
If they're going to assist in this kind of activity, then they have to be responsible for their actions, and held accountable. | |
| Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
·Comcast
·Embarq
|  ISP's do not care whether the accused is guilty or not.
 All the ISP's need to do, to satisfy the RIAA, is make believe that they are doing something. As long as the ISP's sends a notice to someone, guilty or not, the ISP's management has done something. ISPs should be held accountable if they make a mistake. The correct solution would be for a group of customers wrongly accused, to file a class action suit against the ISP.
In my opinion, until the ISP and the RIAA are forced to compensate a customer a significant monetary sanction, say $100,000.00 per occurrence, for negligently accusing a customer for illegally downloading copyrighted material, the ISP will not have an incentive to be accurate and be careful about who they accuse. | |
| |
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA | Re: ISP's do not care whether the accused is guilty or not. $100,000? Each song can be worth $150,000, so I think it would only be fair to ask for at least that much for every copyright violation accusation that is cast about wantonly. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. | |
| | | 
snipper_cr
join:2002-01-22
Wheaton, IL
clubs:
| Re: ISP's do not care whether the accused is guilty or not. said by jmn1207 :$100,000? Each song can be worth $150,000, so I think it would only be fair to ask for at least that much for every copyright violation accusation that is cast about wantonly. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Then they can settle out of court to the tune of around $3-5000 dollars to prevent the case from going forward! | |
| | | |
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: ISP's do not care whether the accused is guilty or not. said by snipper_cr :said by jmn1207 :$100,000? Each song can be worth $150,000, so I think it would only be fair to ask for at least that much for every copyright violation accusation that is cast about wantonly. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Then they can settle out of court to the tune of around $3-5000 dollars to prevent the case from going forward! Sure, we can even make an "insta-settlement" website for the RIAA to pay everyone more efficiently.  | |
| | Bill03
Premium
join:2007-11-26
Richmond, VA
clubs:
| I disagree. If the RI** provides false information to the ISP, how can the ISP be held liable? I'll agree the RI** methods are dubious at best but the ISP isn't going to be able to verify whether are not the RI** info is correct.
Unless you want them monitoring your traffic all the time.
I completely agree the RI** should be held liable and $100,000.00 per false accusation sounds good. | |
| | | 
TomClancy
Freedom isn't free
join:2003-04-23
... | Re: ISP's do not care whether the accused is guilty or not. Well the ISP is the one who disconnects you and not the RIAA. The ISP doesn't have to help the RIAA, it's thier choice to do so. | |
| | | | nitzan
Premium,VIP
join:2008-02-27
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
| Re: ISP's do not care whether the accused is guilty or not. said by TomClancy :Well the ISP is the one who disconnects you and not the RIAA. The ISP doesn't have to help the RIAA, it's thier choice to do so. Exactly. Given that they are opening themselves up to a world of hurt in court over this, I seriously don't see why they are helping the RIAA. It'll only take one major case and major judgment against an ISP to make this b/s stop. | |
| | | | | Bill03
Premium
join:2007-11-26
Richmond, VA
clubs:
| Re: ISP's do not care whether the accused is guilty or not. said by nitzan :said by TomClancy :Well the ISP is the one who disconnects you and not the RIAA. The ISP doesn't have to help the RIAA, it's thier choice to do so. Exactly. Given that they are opening themselves up to a world of hurt in court over this, I seriously don't see why they are helping the RIAA. It'll only take one major case and major judgment against an ISP to make this b/s stop. There has been no proof offered that Comcast is helping the RI**. It was alleged by Karl Bode but there is no verified source as of yet. | |
| | | | | | nitzan
Premium,VIP
join:2008-02-27
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
| Re: ISP's do not care whether the accused is guilty or not. said by Bill03 :There has been no proof offered that Comcast is helping the RI**. It was alleged by Karl Bode but there is no verified source as of yet. Where there's smoke there's fire.
If there's ANY doubt in Comcast's mind that they're not going to get customer backlash from this - it needs to be erased. Just the THOUGHT of ISP's playing traffic cops makes people pissed off at them. | |
| | | | | | | Bill03
Premium
join:2007-11-26
Richmond, VA
clubs:
| Re: ISP's do not care whether the accused is guilty or not. I'm not sure there is fire in this one. Here's a post from devnull that outlines the sequence of articles and posts:
Tracing the news
Following the links back to the original sources:
The Wall Street Journal said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"the Recording Industry Association of America said it plans to try an approach that relies on the cooperation of Internet-service providers."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CNET then reports:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"AT&T and Comcast, two of the nation's largest Internet service providers, are expected to be among a group of ISPs that will cooperate with the music industry in battling illegal file sharing, three sources close to the companies told CNET News."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DSLR then says
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"CNET has discovered, not too surprisingly, that both Comcast and AT&T are among the plan's dozen or so participants, though no carrier wants to admit as much on the record
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which DSLR expands into:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Last week it was made clear that both AT&T and Comcast are participating in the RIAA's secret plan to make carriers content cops"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to CNET's "three sources close to the companies" I don't think I'd bet the rent money on people who aren't named.
Would the RI** LIKE to have two of the largest ISPs on board with their stupid plan? Certainly. Does the RI** EXPECT the two of the largest ISPs to jump in with them. Probably, given their peculiar mindset. HAVE AT&T and Comcast joined up to be universally despised by most everyone. NO.
I hope they don't but let's not start reading their minds. I hope I'm right and they don't. We'll see... | |
| devnuller
join:2006-06-10
Hollis, NH
| Tracing the news Following the links back to the original sources:
The Wall Street Journal said:
quote:
"the Recording Industry Association of America said it plans to try an approach that relies on the cooperation of Internet-service providers."
CNET then reports:
quote:
"AT&T and Comcast, two of the nation's largest Internet service providers, are expected to be among a group of ISPs that will cooperate with the music industry in battling illegal file sharing, three sources close to the companies told CNET News."
DSLR then says
quote:
"CNET has discovered, not too surprisingly, that both Comcast and AT&T are among the plan's dozen or so participants, though no carrier wants to admit as much on the record
Which DSLR expands into:
quote:
"Last week it was made clear that both AT&T and Comcast are participating in the RIAA's secret plan to make carriers content cops"
| |
| | 
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
|  Re: Tracing the news
said by devnuller :Following the links back to the original sources: The Wall Street Journal said: quote:
"the Recording Industry Association of America said it plans to try an approach that relies on the cooperation of Internet-service providers."
CNET then reports: quote:
"AT&T and Comcast, two of the nation's largest Internet service providers, are expected to be among a group of ISPs that will cooperate with the music industry in battling illegal file sharing, three sources close to the companies told CNET News."
DSLR then says quote:
"CNET has discovered, not too surprisingly, that both Comcast and AT&T are among the plan's dozen or so participants, though no carrier wants to admit as much on the record
Which DSLR expands into: quote:
"Last week it was made clear that both AT&T and Comcast are participating in the RIAA's secret plan to make carriers content cops"
Sounds like the kids game "whispering down the lane". By the time the story reaches the end of the line it bears little resemblance to the original story. The subsequent stories in the chain you mention show no proofs - merely gossip and rumor.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | 
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
3 edits | "Last week it was made clear that both AT&T and Comcast are participating in the RIAA's secret plan to make carriers content cops." The CNET report indicates that both AT&T (who I've spoken to personally about this) and Comcast are participating in the RIAA's plan, which is still being hashed out.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with the sentence.
You could replace "plan" with "closed door negotiations for a plan," if you want to play semantic patty cake. | |
| | 
fatness
subtle
Janitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
·EarthLink
Host:
Earthlink DSL
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help?
Rants, Raves, and ..
| said by devnuller :CNET then reports: quote:
"AT&T and Comcast, two of the nation's largest Internet service providers, are expected to be among a group of ISPs that will cooperate with the music industry in battling illegal file sharing, three sources close to the companies told CNET News."
Here's that story: »AT&T, Comcast Part Of RIAA's New 3 Strikes Plan
Here's the CNN story it links: »news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10151389-93.html
Here's what the CNN story says: AT&T and Comcast, two of the nation's largest Internet service providers, are expected to be among a group of ISPs that will cooperate with the music industry in battling illegal file sharing, three sources close to the companies told CNET News. But as it stands, AT&T and Comcast are among the companies that have indicated they wish to participate in what the RIAA calls a "graduated response program." An RIAA spokesman declined to comment, and a Comcast representative said he wouldn't confirm the company's participation. An AT&T spokesman said this: "While I'm not in a position to comment on the RIAA announcement, we believe that consumer education is a key component to enabling customers to find and use legal methods to access the content they want...we have also consistently said that automatic cutoff of our customers is not something we would do." 3 insiders confirm it. CNN states that it's happening. Nobody with the RIAA, Comcast, or AT&T denies it.
--
goodbye dad | |
| | |
See 7 replies to this post | |
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | ISPs who go along with the RIAA... should lose their "safe harbor" status and be held legally responsible for everything that goes over their network! | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
TCub
Premium
join:2008-09-03
Olmsted Falls, OH
clubs:
·Cox HSI
| Take em down! The RIAA needs to be defeated. It's unbelievable the shit they get away with.
Consumers need to stand up for their rights and form their own group. Lets start the United Consumers Association of America, UCAA. Together we'll file lawsuits on oh I don't know, who evers picture the dart lands on of people who work for the RIAA. You can run them into the ground.
--
And if you go, furious angels will bring you back to me. | |
| | nitzan
Premium,VIP
join:2008-02-27 | Re: Take em down! That, or join the EFF.  | |
| | |
TCub
Premium
join:2008-09-03
Olmsted Falls, OH
clubs: | Re: Take em down! beat me to the punch i suppose... | |
| geowil
join:2008-04-20
Laveen, AZ
·Qwest.net
·Cox HSI
| omfg ROTFLCOPTER
omg, i was laughing so hard, this is actually a good thing, it shows that comcrap has its head up its proverbial arse if they cant even update the damn custom info if they bought a new router.
but yea, this is an epic fail, dare i say even ph4i1, and i hope is turning this 'piracy kindergarten cop' scenario into a joke that other isp's will abandon and/or not get sucked into.
--
Speedtest.net:
27759KB/s Down
538kb/s Up | |
| | | |
|
|
Comcast Already Screws Up Playing Copyright Cop
It was a Linux ISO right?
