Cox Employs 'Three Strikes' DMCA Policy Falsely infers the DMCA requires they disable accounts... Wednesday Oct 01 2008 11:51 EDT Like Comcast, Cox has used packet forgery to disrupt P2P communications, but unlike Comcast the company didn't get much attention for it -- largely because they didn't lie about it. Unlike Comcast however, Torrent Freak notes that the cable company has also been disconnecting users who receive three DMCA warnings, something Cox confirms. While that's one way to try and manage heavy bandwidth consumption -- the practice is controversial for several reasons. Cox users who violate this "three strikes" policy receive this notification: quote:
Under the DMCA, we have the responsibility to temporarily disable your Internet access, until such time as you take the necessary steps to remove the infringing files and to prevent further distribution of copyrighted material.
Except that isn't true. The DMCA only requires that an ISP inform users of infringement if contacted by a copyright holder. It doesn't require they terminate or disable the user account. There's also the small problem that these DMCA letters are generated by companies who aren't particularly accurate and worse -- the letters can be falsely generated by some rudimentary hacking.Obviously, there's some potential for problems. The entertainment industry has been pressuring lawmakers to require ISPs adopt such "three strike" policies, but very few, if any, have adopted them voluntarily. Our question is whether this is really just a scare tactic. Have any Cox customers out there seen full disconnection upon their third DMCA offense? |
  Dogfather
Premium Member
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA |
Not really 3 strikesIt looks like you just have to do a click-through "yeah I deleted it" screen. | |
|  mikepdDiscovery
Premium Member
join:2000-10-26
New Port Richey, FL |
mikepd
Premium Member
2008-Oct-1 11:58 am
Contract LawI would really like to see this practice of three violations and the subscriber gets disconnected challenged in court. Courts tend to take a dim view of contracts that give too much control to one side over the other party.
Even if it is published as part of the TOS, it can still be held null and void by a court as unfair so it would be very interesting to see how this would play out before a judge. | |
|  | fiberguy2My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20 |
Re: Contract Lawsaid by mikepd:I would really like to see this practice of three violations and the subscriber gets disconnected challenged in court. Courts tend to take a dim view of contracts that give too much control to one side over the other party. Even if it is published as part of the TOS, it can still be held null and void by a court as unfair so it would be very interesting to see how this would play out before a judge. The provider has a right to take actions against those who violate 'the rules'.. and, to this day, distributing copyrighted material is not legal. The TOS clearly states you are not allowed to do it.. if it's against the TOS to do so, they certainly have the right, based on the TOS as it is, to simply pull your access on the first violation if they really wanted to. What calls into play, more so than your opinion of favoring one side, is if the provider has enough evidence to be sure that you were in violation. Here comes the flames for this.. I really don't think the xxAA is just sending out letters at random with out first having obtained the material they reported. Since they have the "rights" to the protected work, they also have a right to make the allegations. This "contract law" is based on actual law.. the TOS agreement is simply stating they are going to enforce laws. What you're talking about is the action they take while enforcing them, to which I agree. | |
| | |
1 edit
1 recommendation |
Re: Contract Lawsaid by fiberguy2:.. I really don't think the xxAA is just sending out letters at random with out first having obtained the material they reported. Since they have the "rights" to the protected work, they also have a right to make the allegations. Evidently you haven't been following along with the farce that is the DMCA notification process then. These companies do, in fact, randomly, and in most instances, incorrectly hand out takedown notifications like Halloween candy. This instance is but a single case in point. Random and incorrect takedown notices happen quite frequently. BTW, you should refrain from discussing Contract Law since you have absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about. | |
| | | |  kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
1 edit |
kamm
Member
2008-Oct-1 3:00 pm
Re: Contract Lawsaid by SilverSurfer1:said by fiberguy2:.. I really don't think the xxAA is just sending out letters at random with out first having obtained the material they reported. Since they have the "rights" to the protected work, they also have a right to make the allegations. Evidently you haven't been following along with the farce that is the DMCA notification process then. These companies do, in fact, randomly, and in most instances, incorrectly hand out takedown notifications like Halloween candy. This instance is but a single case in point. Random and incorrect takedown notices happen quite frequently. BTW, you should refrain from discussing Contract Law since you have absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about. Well, it's been repeateadly showcased in the past so it's nothing new...  | |
|
| |  knightmbEverybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN
1 edit |
to fiberguy2
said by fiberguy2:The provider has a right to take actions against those who violate 'the rules'.. and, to this day, distributing copyrighted material is not legal. The TOS clearly states you are not allowed to do it.. if it's against the TOS to do so, they certainly have the right, based on the TOS as it is, to simply pull your access on the first violation if they really wanted to. What calls into play, more so than your opinion of favoring one side, is if the provider has enough evidence to be sure that you were in violation. Here comes the flames for this.. I really don't think the xxAA is just sending out letters at random with out first having obtained the material they reported. Since they have the "rights" to the protected work, they also have a right to make the allegations. This "contract law" is based on actual law.. the TOS agreement is simply stating they are going to enforce laws. What you're talking about is the action they take while enforcing them, to which I agree. Fair enough, but how many people are going to abuse this like they do with youtube take down notices? Someone you don't like? Craft a complaint, send it to the ISP and one strike it is with no way to appeal. Unless the ISP is going to hire a panel of technically smart Judges, I see this as one big goat screw to the customer and just another abuse of the court systems/laws by business. | |
| | |  funchordsHello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
1 recommendation |
to fiberguy2
said by fiberguy2:to this day, distributing copyrighted material is not legal. That's simply not true, either. While distribution is called an exclusive right of the copyright holder, there are exclusions and defenses that make certain transfers under certain conditions legal. Under Fair Use, I can't publicly publish the whole movie at full quality while it's still making money for the owner. But there are several legal things I can do. For example, if I took content from a movie and used a small part of it in a review that I posted in 320x240 format online, then some or all of those acts are legal. I probably don't need anyone's permission to download it (although this is the part that I'm not totally convinced of). I know that I don't need anyone's permission to use it in the review or to publish my review. I can also ask my daughter to dig into my storage boxes, dig out my DVD's of "Adam-12" and have her upload them to me. The four factors, all of which are subjective, are 1. the purpose and character of your use 2. the nature of the copyrighted work 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market. As fair as my ISP is concerned, my business is my business. This alone is why DMCA notices ought not be used by anyone to assume that a copyright violation is occurring, or at least why users should reply back to their ISPs concerning them. (Under the DMCA, you don't need to "take down" anything that you're legally using.) But the second reasons ISPs ought to shove back against DMCA notices is the studio's widespread abuses of them -- attacking fair uses as if they had more rights that they have under the copyright act. All that said -- I doubt the vast majority of this is about Fair Uses, and people ought to follow the law or change it. Ignoring it just extends the problem. | |
| | | | | |
Re: Contract Lawsaid by funchords:said by fiberguy2:to this day, distributing copyrighted material is not legal. That's simply not true, either. Creative Commons licensing should also be included in the smacking down of erroneous information spewed by ignoramuses. | |
| | | | | |
to funchords
Very nicely put. There are a lot of copyrighted works which the copyright owner has passed their distribution rights to the public domain. Shareware and freeware software, thousands of written and performed works, etc. The list would be enormous. Just because a work is copyrighted does not automatically make distribution illegal.
I could copyright this post. | |
| | | | | |
to funchords
quote:
I can also ask my daughter to dig into my storage boxes, dig out my DVD's of "Adam-12" and have her upload them to me.
Under the DMCA, you can't. In order to copy them, you have to break the CSS, thus violating the DMCA. Fair use or no, the DMCA probits defeating copy-protection mechanisms. | |
| | | | |  MrMoodyFree range slave
Premium Member
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC
1 edit |
MrMoody
Premium Member
2008-Oct-1 3:04 pm
Re: Contract LawNo, and no. The DMCA doesn't trump fair use (yet), and doesn't prohibit the actual breaking of copy protection (yet). It only prohibits distributing technology to do it with.
In any case many public domain DVDs aren't encrypted anyway. | |
| | | | | | | |
Re: Contract LawReal Networks is in the process of being sued by the Big Six studios over its DVD ripping software due out next week. Real claims it does not violate DMCA since it does not permit distribution beyond the computer the file is ripped to. Nevertheless, the suit has been filed. Whether this will have any effect on DMCA interpretation regarding copy protection avoidance is anyones guess at this point but it does show how jumpy the MPAA et. al. are about this. | |
| | | | | | | MrMoodyFree range slave
Premium Member
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC |
MrMoody
Premium Member
2008-Oct-1 3:14 pm
Re: Contract LawThey are violating the DMCA by distributing cracking technology. The user is not. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Re: Contract LawIt is not 'cracking technology' though according to Real. It allows a 'fair use' transfer from one media to another, not the creation of another copy of the work. This is some murky (and deep) water. | |
| | | | | | | | | fiberguy2My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20 |
Re: Contract Lawsaid by RadioDoc:It is not 'cracking technology' though according to Real. It allows a 'fair use' transfer from one media to another, not the creation of another copy of the work. This is some murky (and deep) water. .. and for once, we agree. | |
|
| | | | | | |
to MrMoody
Yes, using DeCSS, which you need to rip a DVD, does.
17 USC Sec. 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems
(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES- (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
. . .
(e)(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that;
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
(3) As used in this subsection —
(A) to “circumvent a technological measure” means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and | |
| | | | | | | MrMoodyFree range slave
Premium Member
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC Netgear CM500
Asus RT-AC68
1 edit |
MrMoody
Premium Member
2008-Oct-1 3:39 pm
Re: Contract Lawsaid by jmuskratt:Yes, using DeCSS, which you need to rip a DVD, does. 17 USC Sec. 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems (a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES- (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. Hmm, seems I was wrong about that. But in any case: quote:
(c) OTHER RIGHTS, ETC., NOT AFFECTED- (1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.
So cracking is not infringement if you otherwise had the right to make a copy, which means the cracking itself would have to be criminally prosecuted. Would never happen to a private citizen making personal fair use copies, there'd be too much political fallout. So the *AAs have to concentrate on preventing the enablers ... (edit) Chamberlain v. Skylink, 2004: quote:
"The plain language of the statute ... requires a plaintiff alleging circumvention (or trafficking) to prove that the defendant's access was unauthorized-a significant burden where, as here, the copyright laws authorize consumers to use the copy of Chamberlain's software embedded in the GDOs that they purchased."
I read that as saying as long as you are authorized to access the DVD, you are authorized to crack it. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Re: Contract LawAgain, not entirely correct.
Making a backup copy for personal use *may be* legal fair use.
Using DeCSS to break the protection to make that copy, violates the DMCA.
So, if your Adam 12 DVDs didn't have CSS, then you'd be ok. Now whether there'll ever be a prosecution for using AnyDVD or DVD43, I can't say. The DMCA, however, does render otherwise legal fair use into banditry.
From UNIVERSAL CITY v REIMERDES:
We know of no authority for the proposition that fair use, as protected by the Copyright Act, much less the Constitution, guarantees copying by the optimum method or in the identical format of the original. Although the Appellants insisted at oral argument that they should not be relegated to a "horse and buggy" technique in making fair use of DVD movies,36 the DMCA does not impose even an arguable limitation on the opportunity to make a variety of traditional fair uses of DVD movies, such as commenting on their content, quoting excerpts from their screenplays, and even recording portions of the video images and sounds on film or tape by pointing a camera, a camcorder, or a microphone at a monitor as it displays the DVD movie. The fact that the resulting copy will not be as perfect or as manipulable as a digital copy obtained by having direct access to the DVD movie in its digital form, provides no basis for a claim of unconstitutional limitation of fair use. A film critic making fair use of a movie by quoting selected lines of dialogue has no constitutionally valid claim that the review (in print or on television) would be technologically superior if the reviewer had not been prevented from using a movie camera in the theater, nor has an art student a valid constitutional claim to fair use of a painting by photographing it in a museum. Fair use has never been held to be a guarantee of access to copyrighted material in order to copy it by the fair user's preferred technique or in the format of the original. | |
| | | | | | | | | funchordsHello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA |
Re: Contract Lawsaid by jmuskratt:Again, not entirely correct. Making a backup copy for personal use *may be* legal fair use. Using DeCSS to break the protection to make that copy, violates the DMCA. So, if your Adam 12 DVDs didn't have CSS, then you'd be ok. Now whether there'll ever be a prosecution for using AnyDVD or DVD43, I can't say. The DMCA, however, does render otherwise legal fair use into banditry. From UNIVERSAL CITY v REIMERDES: We know of no authority for the proposition that fair use, as protected by the Copyright Act, much less the Constitution, guarantees copying by the optimum method or in the identical format of the original. Although the Appellants insisted at oral argument that they should not be relegated to a "horse and buggy" technique in making fair use of DVD movies,36 the DMCA does not impose even an arguable limitation on the opportunity to make a variety of traditional fair uses of DVD movies, such as commenting on their content, quoting excerpts from their screenplays, and even recording portions of the video images and sounds on film or tape by pointing a camera, a camcorder, or a microphone at a monitor as it displays the DVD movie. The fact that the resulting copy will not be as perfect or as manipulable as a digital copy obtained by having direct access to the DVD movie in its digital form, provides no basis for a claim of unconstitutional limitation of fair use. A film critic making fair use of a movie by quoting selected lines of dialogue has no constitutionally valid claim that the review (in print or on television) would be technologically superior if the reviewer had not been prevented from using a movie camera in the theater, nor has an art student a valid constitutional claim to fair use of a painting by photographing it in a museum. Fair use has never been held to be a guarantee of access to copyrighted material in order to copy it by the fair user's preferred technique or in the format of the original. Sorry, but not based on that case. Quoting the ever fallible Wikipedia, The particular facts and litigation posture of the defendants was pivotal in this case. The district court found that the "primary purpose" of the defendants' actions was to promote redistribution of DVDs in violation of copyright laws, because the defendants admitted as much. See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes, 111 F. Supp. 2d 346 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). The finding was upheld by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on the specific facts of the case, but the appellate court left open the possibility that different facts could change the result. See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429 (2d Cir. 2001), at footnotes 5 and 16. In my example "Adam-12" case, and assuming that it is CSS-scrambled, I have the permission to decrypt -- I purchased and own my copy, which must be decrypted in order to display the work. Secondly, I'm not circumventing anything, because the copy protection isn't intended to block me from content that I bought the rights to play. Thirdly, the copyright holder doesn't have any exclusive rights that I'm violating (17 USC 106 prohibits reproduction by copies - plural). Forth, never in history that I'm aware has a copyright holder prevailed against any person who made and used a backup copy without any further violation of the copyright holder's exclusive rights. Finally, if all of those arguments fail, I still hold a fair use argument because my activity will have zero market impact. | |
|
| | | | | kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY |
to MrMoody
said by MrMoody:No, and no. The DMCA doesn't trump fair use (yet), and doesn't prohibit the actual breaking of copy protection (yet). It only prohibits distributing technology to do it with. In any case many public domain DVDs aren't encrypted anyway. Actually it DOES prohibit the circumvention of CP machanisms - which clause alone renders the whole DMCA illegal - EXCEPT certain cases though. | |
|
| | |  Doctor FourMy other vehicle is a TARDIS
Premium Member
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX |
to funchords
It isn't just the studios and the major recording labels that are misusing the DMCA. Increasingly, it is being used as a tool to silence dissenting opinions. $cientology lately have been notorious for abusing it, getting some 4000 anti-CoS Youtube videos taken down, claiming copyrights. Well after counterclaims, most of those videos are back up. | |
|
| |  swhx7
Premium Member
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
1 edit |
to fiberguy2
said by fiberguy2:The provider has a right to take actions against those who violate 'the rules'.. What calls into play, more so than your opinion of favoring one side, is if the provider has enough evidence to be sure that you were in violation. Imagine this simple scenario. Alice has not committed any copyright infringement, but Bob sends Alice's ISP Cox a DMCA notice claiming that Alice infringed Bob's copyright. Now Cox punishes Alice for a rule violation. The problem is that the practical, effective rule is not "don't commit copyright infringement" - instead it's "don't be accused of copyright infringement". It's punishing people for something beyond their control - an action of someone else. If Cox made some effort to discern whether the rule was actually broken, it would be more nearly fair. For example, they could follow the DMCA procedure, which provides for the accused person to be given the opportunity to reply to the accusation, and thereby avert any "takedown" action. As it is, Cox has opened a huge invitation to abuse. As far as the articles indicate, there is no disincentive to carelessness on the part of the big copyright owners, and no provision to sort out sincere complaints from careless or malicious false accusations. | |
| | |  NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P
|
to fiberguy2
said by fiberguy2:I really don't think the xxAA is just sending out letters at random with out first having obtained the material they reported. Since they have the "rights" to the protected work, they also have a right to make the allegations. While they have the right to "make allegations", those alleged to have wronged them have equal right to challenge those allegations. The question comes down to proof: Can the xxAA back up their allegations to the satisfaction of a court of law? | |
| | |  joako
Premium Member
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null |
to fiberguy2
said by fiberguy2:said by mikepd:I would really like to see this practice of three violations and the subscriber gets disconnected challenged in court. Courts tend to take a dim view of contracts that give too much control to one side over the other party. Even if it is published as part of the TOS, it can still be held null and void by a court as unfair so it would be very interesting to see how this would play out before a judge. The provider has a right to take actions against those who violate 'the rules'.. and, to this day, distributing copyrighted material is not legal. The TOS clearly states you are not allowed to do it.. if it's against the TOS to do so, they certainly have the right, based on the TOS as it is, to simply pull your access on the first violation if they really wanted to. What calls into play, more so than your opinion of favoring one side, is if the provider has enough evidence to be sure that you were in violation. Here comes the flames for this.. I really don't think the xxAA is just sending out letters at random with out first having obtained the material they reported. Since they have the "rights" to the protected work, they also have a right to make the allegations. This "contract law" is based on actual law.. the TOS agreement is simply stating they are going to enforce laws. What you're talking about is the action they take while enforcing them, to which I agree. Yea because DMCA notices are CONCRETE PROOF. I got one the other day for something in the colo (first one ever). It said "infringing URL » tpb.thepiratebay.org" no matter what you say I do not host any site for the pirate bay. And you know what there is some linux software that has (and probably still does) use TPB as their tracker site for the offical bt distribution! | |
| | |  TomClancyFreedom Isn't Free
join:2003-04-23
... |
to fiberguy2
You can't break the law to prosecute someone who has broken the law. And by that I mean they aren't allowed to track what I'm do online which is against the privacy act. That is why this would never sand in court. | |
| | | | NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P
|
Re: Contract Lawsaid by TomClancy:You can't break the law to prosecute someone who has broken the law. And by that I mean they aren't allowed to track what I'm do online which is against the privacy act. That is why this would never sand in court. Unfortunately, for you, most P2P protocols are based on a public announcement of files available for download. When you publicly advertise having the goods, anybody, even MediaSentry agents of the xxAA, are invited to access your IP address. You can't use such a protocol, then hide behind your "privacy" when it suits you. | |
| | | | | TomClancyFreedom Isn't Free
join:2003-04-23
... |
Re: Contract LawJust because I'm walking on a PUBLIC road doesn't mean you have the right to track my movements. Get it, go it? Good! | |
| | | | | | funchordsHello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA |
Re: Contract Lawsaid by TomClancy:Just because I'm walking on a PUBLIC road doesn't mean you have the right to track my movements. Ummm. Yeah, it does. | |
| | | | | | | TomClancyFreedom Isn't Free
join:2003-04-23
... |
Re: Contract LawYou do that and I call the cops. What is going to happened? | |
| | | | | | | | funchordsHello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA |
Re: Contract LawIt's not illegal.
When I'm in public, I'm not in private. Someone can follow me, photograph me, call their friends daily and tell them what I'm wearing -- all legal.
Public is the opposite of private.
It doesn't mean that someone can harass or threaten me, but they certainly can track my public movements and there's nothing I can do about it. | |
| | | | | | | | fiberguy2My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20 |
to TomClancy
said by TomClancy:You do that and I call the cops. What is going to happened? When you are in public, you do not have "a reasonable expectation to privacy"... if you don't want to be photographed, if you don't want to be watched, you have a right to stay out of the public square, in your home, behind your curtains, where you DO have a reasonable expectation of privacy. If you call the cops, they will tell you the same thing. Ever heard of the cases constantly be tossed out of court recently regarding this? Girls/boys gone bad? (The ones where they film people at Mardi-Gras or Spring Break acting fools and selling it?) How about the cases where someone was in public in a restaurant and her photo was shot and sold (sorry, forget the name, but recently on CNN & Fox News).. all tossed out. When you are in public, you can't expect that what you do wont be captured on some sort of media, and used, because it can. Now stalking.. there are very specific conditions that have to be met prior to you using THAT as a claim. | |
|
| | | | | NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P
|
to TomClancy
said by TomClancy:Just because I'm walking on a PUBLIC road doesn't mean you have the right to track my movements. Get it, go it? Good! If I am wearing a sandwich board offering free peanuts, you damned well can follow me around, trying to get them. P2P means participating in a public exchange of data. You advertise (the sandwich board) that you have something to offer; advertise it to the public. You are inviting public scrutiny. And MediaSentry has just as much right to connect to the public BitTorrent tracker as you, or I. And to figure out who is doing what with that tracker. | |
| | | | | | |
•••••••••••••
|
1 recommendation |
Am I missing something?It says responsibility, Not they are required... And the tree strike rule applies Any TOS violation, not just file sharing... And Cox sends out several warnings before Strike 1 is even employed... If the warnings go unanswered or ignored then the service will be shut off until the warning is acknowledged... And my source?: » Re: [ALL] P2P Uploading and Downloading on Cox HSI | |
|  sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa |
sbrook
Mod
2008-Oct-1 11:58 am
InterestingAnother significant problem with this is that according to their letter, the copyright holder has to identify the individual suspected of copyright violations. Identification by IP is not identifying the individual ... that is being done by the ISP.
I am not a lawyer and don't even play one on television, but that sure looks like yet another big hole in this policy. | |
| Dogfather
Premium Member
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
1 recommendation |
How about 3 crappy movies or albums and you're outSeems that would make more sense in terms of promoting civilization. | |
| | |
ScammersThere's no such thing as a valid DMCA takedown for torrenting. DMCA warnings apply only to ISP-hosted content. | |
| |
•••••••••• | | |
burn emBern them to a dvd we have no more problem> | |
|  dcurrey
Premium Member
join:2004-06-29
Mason, OH
1 edit |
dcurrey
Premium Member
2008-Oct-1 12:16 pm
Dumb questionOk if they are just forging return p2p packets how can they determine if its pirated content or not. Despite what some would say everything transferred via p2p is not illegal.
If they are also doing deep packet inspection does this not also violate wire tapping rules the same way NebuAd advertising did.
Edit:
Never mind I think I get what going on. A third party contact the isp saying ip is sharing copyrighted material and the isp just sends you an email with no proof needed. | |
| | |
1 recommendation |
DMCA letters are easily forged, and hard to get rid of.I've received one DMCA warning in the past. It was for an .iso of the Wii game "Red Steel." My Wii isn't even modchipped, and at the time I didn't have a DVD burner- and the IP address was for a modem in another city. (I worked for the ISP at the time, so I knew their addressing scheme.) After calling the ISP and explaining all of this, the gentleman at the ISP agreed with my assessment of the address data at least, but he told me that there was nothing that they could do to remove the letter from the file. If I were a Cox customer, this would have been Strike One. Fair?
These letters lack a critical component- accountability. Not only do they assume customers are guilty, but they do not even provide any way to prove a customer's innocence even in cases of clear error. In my case, who cares... but if my continued service was in danger, it would be a very different issue. | |
| |
•••••••• | banner
Premium Member
join:2003-11-07
Long Beach, CA |
banner
Premium Member
2008-Oct-1 12:48 pm
UverseThey have sent me 4 cable boxes and I have had to call them 4 times for various issues. Now the DVR broke and they cannot fix it over the phone. I just had the service for 3 weeks. I do not have a telephone but they shove a phone connection and long distance down my throat with their bundle. Now this bs!
I am going to give Uverse a try - after the tech comes out and fixes my cable box. | |
| | |
Yep, Sounds Just like Cox Incompetent CommunicationsPlease, Cox's left hand doesn't know what it's right hand is doing with regard to those customers that they haven't disconnected yet, but they're comfortable sending out disconnection notifications based on DMCA notices that aren't even accurate in the first place. | |
| MrMoodyFree range slave
Premium Member
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC Netgear CM500
Asus RT-AC68
|
MrMoody
Premium Member
2008-Oct-1 12:56 pm
Nothing newTWC's stated DMCA policy as of Jan 2002: quote:
Our Abuse policy sets ratings for the types of complaints. Copyright infringement is an automatic 24 hour suspension on the first offense, 14 days on the second offense, with termination of services occurring on the third offense.
| |
|  davidl
join:2008-07-11
Vaudreuil-Dorion, QC |
davidl
Member
2008-Oct-1 1:27 pm
Legal BitTorrentThere is such a thing as legal P2P...some mainstream networks are even dabbling in it. So, automatically deciding that because a stream is using the BitTorrent protocol that it's an illegal download would be something to challenge in court. Here's a legal P2P site: » publicdomaintorrents.com/ | |
|
1 recommendation |
How is this news?Can somebody please explain to me how on Earth this could possible be classified as news rather than "Yet another uninformed opinion piece/rant by the DSLR News Staff?" | |
| | funchordsHello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA |
Re: How is this news?said by BillRoland:Can somebody please explain to me how on Earth this could possible be classified as news rather than "Yet another uninformed opinion piece/rant by the DSLR News Staff?" A 3-strikes rule on US soil is news. | |
| | | |
to BillRoland
I think that Karl is probably "informed" enough to make that judgment. | |
|
| |
Walleye
Anon
2008-Oct-1 1:51 pm
P2P isn't illegalTorrents are the best way to get anything more popular than an alpha release in Linux. These are just more excuses for the ISPs to provide services in a city in Indiana that is inferior to that received by rice farmers in Taiwan. I burn through 15GB per distro working with some distros, and I make sure I upload so that others have access to Opensource resources. That's just the operating system. Copyright infringers are just the scapegoats for ISPs to censor usage. | |
|  antdudeMatrix Ant
Premium Member
join:2001-03-25
US |
antdude
Premium Member
2008-Oct-1 1:54 pm
Adelphia...Adelphia did this too. | |
|  GlobalMindDomino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium Member
join:2001-10-29
Indianapolis, IN |
Takedown notice...Apparently Cox misunderstands what that's supposed to mean.  | |
| | |
63353372 (banned)
Member
2008-Oct-1 6:20 pm
Cox drove me to alcoholismCox drove me to alcoholism | |
|  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium Member
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ |
dvd536
Premium Member
2008-Oct-1 9:16 pm
HBODownloading stuff of theirs almost guarantees a nastygram letter. on private sites? doesn't matter, some have infiltrated the private sites too. | |
|  SimbaSevenI Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT ·StarLink
|
Um.. What happened to "One backup copy allowed"?This is what I don't get.
Everyone says that you can make a backup. They just don't give you a legal way to do it.
So, any medium, any format, if it's copy-protected, you can't make a backup, even though they say you can.
Confusing.. | |
|
| |
|
|
·
