 |
 gaforcesUnited We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA | Guilty before Paying to assert innocence Guilty before Paying to assert innocence.
It's official, we live in bizzaro world. Expect many many lawsuits over this.
Also the identification of offenders by ip is problematic.
Since its apparently voluntary participation by Isp's, the ones who do not participate will be very popular.
--
Let them eat FIBER! | |
|
 | | | Re: Guilty before Paying to assert innocence People are sheep. About 8 of them will ever know this is even an issue. They'll do whatever their corporate overlords tell them.
The collective populace's idiocy is why this country is basically a fascist state. | |
|
| |  crazediamondMaybe you shouldn't be so proud?Premium
join:2002-01-19
Atlanta, GA | Re: Guilty before Paying to assert innocence Thanks for letting us know about conditions outside the matrix neo. Keep fighting the good fight on these secret message boards where the big brother fascist government can't detect you. | |
|
| | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: Guilty before Paying to assert innocence When you have the merger of Corporate power with Government authority you ARE in a fascist state. | |
|
 gatorkramNeed for SpeedPremium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
kudos:2 | What did they say? I'd be really interested to know exactly what the responses were from the ISPs contacted about this. And I'd like to know if Suddenlink was contacted and what their reply was.
--
What the heck is a GatorKram? »www.gatorkram.com | |
|
| | | Re: What did they say? Agreed on that. | |
|
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·CenturyLink
 ·Comcast
·Embarq Now Centu..
| Copyright Control should be held accountable. In the event of a proven false accusation against a broadband subscriber, the RIAA or other copyright control agency making the accusation, should be required to pay the subscriber $1,000.00 per occurrence for the subscribers trouble and anxiety caused by the false accusation. A $35.00 charge per inquiry asking the ISP to prove the accuracy of the accusation is against our legal system: Innocent until proven guilty. The $35.00 fee is just another way to shake down subscribers. | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: Copyright Control should be held accountable. Also after six falsely accused customers the copyright holder is banned from issuing more notices for life.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| | | | Re: Copyright Control should be held accountable. ^^^
This | |
|
| |  skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 | +1 | |
|
| | | This is not a law, so no it is not against our legal system. | |
|
| skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 | $1000 defamation fee sounds fair to me. | |
|
|  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | $1000 is too low.
And this is me as an evil conservative saying this. Try $1,000,000. In cash.
Yes, I am serious. If copyright violations are so hostile to the profits of this racket, then the penalty for getting it wrong and screwing over innocent people should be just as hostile.
--
Romney/Ryan 2012 - Put a couple of mature adults in charge. | |
|
Reviews:
 ·ooma
·Optimum Online
 ·Verizon FiOS
| conflict of interest is a recurring theme (broken record) if exporting our laws to Sweden to try and take down The Pirate Bay was good enough for them, then it's got to be good enough for the USA.. afterall, your government is bought and paid for by lobbyists.. let's not be coy about how deep the corruption runs.
when, not if.. these STRIKES end up utilized as "EVIDENCE" of wrongdoing in a criminal or civil court-- lawyers who actually know current case law should be able to make mince meat out of claims which proffer up flimsy strike evidence which has no basis on fact or law, and a questionable moral obligation
how many cases of these shall we see before 100 to 1000 megabit connections are allowed to progress to the mainstream consumer? | |
|
| | | Re: conflict of interest is a recurring theme (broken record) Strikes are not evidence. They are the result of evidence found by the copyright holder that you infringed on copyrighted content. The evidence used to justify the strike is the evidence that would be used in a court of law. It may or may not be enough to hold up in court. | |
|
| | Again.... This is upholding the ToS (transmitting unlicensed copyrighted content) you agreed to when you signed up for your Internet service. If you don't like your ISP enforcing the ToS and in many cases, the contract you legally signed, get a different ISP. It's that simple. If you only have one ISP, don't break the ToS.
This policy is extremely generous. It gives you 6 strikes. If you can't get your piracy habits fixed in 6 strikes, you deserve what you get. If you don't have secured wi-fi, too bad. That's your fault, not the ISPs and not the copyright holder's. A copyright holder can make a mistake. But 6 mistakes? Not going to happen. This policy doesn't cut you off after 6 strikes anyway.
Copyright law needs help. No doubt. But that doesn't give you the right to break it and expect zero consequences. | |
|
|  XiodenPremium
join:2008-06-10
Monticello, NY
kudos:1 | Re: Again.... Yea, which doesn't do crap for someone when it's their printer getting accused of downloading something.
If IP address evidence were more accurate, you would have a point. | |
|
| | | | Re: Again.... IP addresses are actually capable of being extremely accurate because everyone has their own unique IP address. Dynamically assigned IP addresses are only given to one person at a time. If properly tracked who has that address and when, you can pinpoint the exact residence. Who downloaded the content at that residence is not important. | |
|
| | |  SpikePremium
join:2008-05-16
Toronto, ON | Re: Again.... said by silbaco:Who downloaded the content at that residence is not important.
Except from a legal standpoint, it is. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Again.... To the copyright holders suing people, yes. To the ISPs enforcing the 6 strikes policy, no. Transmitting unauthorized copyrighted material over your account is a violation of your ToS. Doesn't matter who did it. | |
|
| | |  elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO | so lets say some one breaks in grandma's wifi and lets say was at lest using WPA or WEP or WPA2 with a weak password
then what? | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Again.... WPA2 with decent password? Not going to happen. WEP/WPA? Too bad. It is your internet connection and your responsibility to protect it. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Again.... Your an idiot and your argument here has been refuted many times here, forums around the world and in the court of law, which is really the only one that matters. So move on troll. | |
|
| | | | | |
3 edits | Re: Again.... said by Skippy25:Your an idiot and your argument here has been refuted many times here, forums around the world and in the court of law, which is really the only one that matters. So move on troll.
If you don't have anything meaningful to add....
As far as court of law, if you get sued by a copyright holder, yes you are right. But that is not what we are talking about now is it? See, you are the troll. You read one post and think you know exactly what is going on. But since we are talking about 6 strikes policies and breaking the ToS, you really sound like an incompetent fool. | |
|
| | | | | | |  NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: Again.... said by silbaco:... we are talking about 6 strikes policies and breaking the ToS ...
Which goes to the difference between an ISP and a content provider. Cable service providers have always been content providers, who dabble in Internet services on the side. Some telcos have become content providers who dabble in Internet services on the side (AT&T, "U-verse TV"; CenturyLink, "Prism TV"; Verizon; "FiOS TV"). They are naturally beholden to members of the MPAA/RIAA, so they will serve the MPAA/RIAA in preference to their paying Internet service customers.
A real ISP would seek a subpoena detailing how their customer has infringed before taking action against their customer. Such "pure" ISPs are rare; but the MPAA/RIAA membership has no contracts with them, so they get no traction with "Six Strikes" against those ISP customers.
Alas, the majority of people want to get Internet from their TV service providers.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Again.... Sonic.net may be the only large ISP who operates that way. Most will not. The wording of DMCA makes things a little iffy. If an ISP puts up too much resistance, they could be in violation of DMCA. Most ISPs are not going to put themselves out there and face potentially being liable. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: Again.... said by silbaco:Sonic.net may be the only large ISP who operates that way. Most will not. The wording of DMCA makes things a little iffy. If an ISP puts up too much resistance, they could be in violation of DMCA. Most ISPs are not going to put themselves out there and face potentially being liable.
IOW, the DMCA requires ISPs to cough up customer information to accusing third parties based on evidence those third parties provide? TTBMK, DMCA only requires an ISP to notify their customers of a complaint of infringement. Any action beyond that notification is/should be on the complaining party! 
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
| | | | | | | | Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| said by NormanS:Alas, the majority of people want to get Internet from their TV service providers. Alas, the majority of TV service providers are the best providers of internet in any given area.
Want a fast internet connection? Then your cable company is your only option. Sure, you can get DSL, if you're willing to also pay for a landline, and settle for service that's 1/4 to 1/2 (at best) what the cable company offers. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: Again.... said by Rekrul:Sure, you can get DSL, if you're willing to also pay for a landline, and settle for service that's 1/4 to 1/2 (at best) what the cable company offers.
Hmm. With Comcast the price of "bare" cable Internet is about the same as Internet+TV. How is that different from having to buy a landline?
Most folks I know don't want to pay $30, and up, for 16M + Powerboost.
I only pay $19.97 for 15M DSL.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
| | | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| quote:
Who downloaded the content at that residence is not important.
Actually, it gets important when it happens without the knowledge or consent of the account holder... otherwise, how can they know if it a legitimate complaint? Your statement is not correct, everyone does not have their own unique IP address. If they did, it would be a simple matter to identify the actual person doing the infringing. Maybe with IPv6, you may be assigned your own personal IP address and it will be considered identity theft to use someone else's. Until then, IP addresses mean very little.
With so many routers in the field which came open by default or were installed by cable/phone techs with WEP (considering how easy it is to crack) there is a responsibility on these companies to correct their mistake before 6 strikes should even be considered. | |
|
| | | |
See 15 replies to this post |
|  GlobalMindDomino Dude, POWER Systems GuyPremium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL | said by silbaco:This is upholding the ToS (transmitting unlicensed copyrighted content) you agreed to when you signed up for your Internet service. Well assuming it is written that way, transmit != receive. So, only if I am sending it is there a problem...which is exactly the point really.
They've claimed before they aren't going after downloaders (receivers) which of course they are. It's the sharing part, the transmission/distribution part that really gets under their skin.
Not to say possession, including digital, of a copyrighted work which you don't have "license" to is going to be a problem, because they'll certainly make it a problem.
These are of course the same folks who claimed ripping down a CD you bought is a violation, right up to the point where they backed down and were slapped down for the position. Sadly they've managed to keep that in place for DVDs, not that it stops anyone.
--
TheGlobalMind.com / Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? / Trust the instinct to the end, though you can render no reason. - Ralph Waldo Emerson / Free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity. | |
|
| | | said by silbaco: "His master's voice says"
This policy is extremely generous. It gives you 6 strikes. If you can't get your piracy habits fixed in 6 strikes, you deserve what you get.
"deserve what we get" What will that be, shill? See - not even the bought out SOB's can out answer that question.
This ridiculous plan will be laughed out of court very soon. Bitch. | |
|
| | | | Re: Again.... said by EdmundGerber:said by silbaco: "His master's voice says"
This policy is extremely generous. It gives you 6 strikes. If you can't get your piracy habits fixed in 6 strikes, you deserve what you get.
"deserve what we get" What will that be, shill? See - not even the bought out SOB's can out answer that question. This ridiculous plan will be laughed out of court very soon. Bitch. Laughed out of court? Will it? It would have to go to court first, which there is no reason to believe it will. Mediacom's 3 strikes and banned for life policy has been around for years. No court trials. | |
|
| | | |
| | | | | | Re: Again.... Am I? Care to elaborate or do you have no idea what you are talking about?
DMCA protects ISPs because it actually says they must take steps to stop infringement in Title II. "(1) it must adopt and reasonably implement a policy of terminating in appropriate circumstances the accounts of subscribers who are repeat infringers." Only Mediacom has taken it to that level it seems, the rest have used loop holes all this time. | |
|
| | | | | NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: Again.... said by silbaco:DMCA protects ISPs because it actually says they must take steps to stop infringement in Title II. "(1) it must adopt and reasonably implement a policy of terminating in appropriate circumstances the accounts of subscribers who are repeat infringers." Only Mediacom has taken it to that level it seems, the rest have used loop holes all this time.
And where is this "loophole" in requiring IP owners to provide legally sufficient evidence of an infringement that would withstand judicial review? Such as a subpoena indicating that the IP owner is going to file a suit against the putative infringer, and needs to know who was assigned an infringing IP address at the time of the alleged infringement?
Oh, right. The IP owner would have to pay court fees up front for each complaint. Six strikes means shifting the burden of enforcement cost to the ISPs!
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
| NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by silbaco:... and in many cases, the contract you legally signed ...
I haven't legally signed any documents pertaining to any ISP since signing up for Astragate dial-up service in 1999.
A copyright holder can make a mistake. But 6 mistakes? Not going to happen.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
| | | | Re: Again.... That's why I said in many cases. Not all.
However, you still agreed to a ToS whether or not you knew it. Every ISP has one. | |
|
| | | NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: Again.... said by silbaco:That's why I said in many cases. Not all.
Actually, it would be a very few cases. Most signups are online, or by phone. No legal signature possible.
However, you still agreed to a ToS whether or not you knew it. Every ISP has one.
In any case, a moot issue for me.
• My ISP does not keep connection logs longer than two weeks, so the MPAA/RIAA has a short window for complaints of infringement.
• My ISP will not carry water for the MPAA/RIAA; they want to see the subpoena before they act.
• My ISP is not participating in six strikes.
• And I don't pirate MPAA/RIAA shit.
But I worry about friends and family. None are sufficiently tech savvy that they would even understand how they got a strike, much less what to do about it.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Again.... said by NormanS:But "Six Strikes" is a unilateral change in the contract. Should it even be called a, "contract", when one party can make unilateral changes?
No, but the law says yes. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Again.... said by silbaco:said by NormanS:But "Six Strikes" is a unilateral change in the contract. Should it even be called a, "contract", when one party can make unilateral changes?
No, but the law says yes. What law is that? | |
|
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | List the ISPs that have refused It would be helpful if you list the ISPs that have refused to talk about it. | |
|
| Reviews:
·Hargray Cable
| Re: List the ISPs that have refused said by morbo:It would be helpful if you list the ISPs that have refused to talk about it.
My keeps the minium records and could care less what you do with your connection, they simply want to make money. Down side is my ISP is a small local ISP that has a monopoly. Of course they say since sat. is available they aren't a monopoly. Good and bad situation there. Cable TV as well it them or Sat. | |
|
skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 | List the ISPs who refuse to answer... ...along with the contact info so each of us can contact our own ISP with those questions. | |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| People will not care... they know full well that the Overseers are tools for the RIAA anyway. The government won't care either since they love the bribes they get from the RIAA/MPAA.
The whole six strikes law is just a result of the RIAA/MPAA bribing the government, nothing more. | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
|
| |  warning methods
I block peer-to-peer protocols at my router; hopefully that's enough to keep from getting dinged on this. In case someone fires up a torrent.
Will they just send us a letter if we show up sharing something? | |
|
| | Did the NET NEUTRALITY fight end?
So now that the precedent is established that ISP's can act as policemen, is there any law in place that says they can't restrict where users go? IE: "you can use google for 10 cents a search or you can use the new AT&T search engine for free!"
This pisses me off to no end and I dont even file share. | |
|
|
|
