 chrisPoor Impulse ControlPremium join:2000-08-13 Middletown, CT | 1998??? People barely had high speed access in 1998. In 1998 I don't think the RIAA/MPAA had any idea that people would be sharing files over the Internet. | |
|
 |  TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus join:2001-06-20 Cheyenne, WY | Re: 1998??? said by chris:People barely had high speed access in 1998. In 1998 I don't think the RIAA/MPAA had any idea that people would be sharing files over the Internet. Well that isn't true, remember Napster. Cut people off for 6 months and guess what they will be a customer of somebody else. -- I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's. - Mark Twain in Eruption | |
|
 |  |  chrisPoor Impulse ControlPremium join:2000-08-13 Middletown, CT | Re: 1998??? said by Transmaster:said by chris:People barely had high speed access in 1998. In 1998 I don't think the RIAA/MPAA had any idea that people would be sharing files over the Internet. Well that isn't true, remember Napster. Cut people off for 6 months and guess what they will be a customer of somebody else. Not according to this;
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster
The service operated between June 1999 and July 2001
So again I say, 1998? Please. | |
|
 |  |  |  | | Re: 1998??? said by chris:said by Transmaster:said by chris:People barely had high speed access in 1998. In 1998 I don't think the RIAA/MPAA had any idea that people would be sharing files over the Internet. Well that isn't true, remember Napster. Cut people off for 6 months and guess what they will be a customer of somebody else. Not according to this; » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster The service operated between June 1999 and July 2001 So again I say, 1998? Please. In 1998 there were tons of FTP sites that operated from DSL lines. To get access you typically had to either upload (UL/DL ratio) or go click on porn or ads to get a "secret password" which sometimes did not work... | |
|
 |  |  |  MrMoodyFree range slavePremium join:2002-09-03 Smithfield, NC | said by chris:So again I say, 1998? Please. How and why do you think the DMCA came into existence? The industry lobbyists were pushing for protection from the evil internet.
Two words for you: Usenet binaries. -- Real estate taxes are a violation of property rights. | |
|
 |  |  |
 |  |  |  chrisPoor Impulse ControlPremium join:2000-08-13 Middletown, CT | Re: 1998??? said by techjoe:said by Transmaster:said by chris:People barely had high speed access in 1998. In 1998 I don't think the RIAA/MPAA had any idea that people would be sharing files over the Internet. Well that isn't true, remember Napster. Cut people off for 6 months and guess what they will be a customer of somebody else. LOL? I guess all of those IRC and BBS file traders were going completely unnoticed pre-napster. I would actually suggest that for the most part, yes they were. It was definitely not in the mainstream until Napster. I think pre-Napster, no one knew how big it would really get. | |
|
 |  cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM join:2003-05-14 Fort Wayne, IN kudos:5 Reviews:
·Frontier FiOS
| said by chris:People barely had high speed access in 1998. In 1998 I don't think the RIAA/MPAA had any idea that people would be sharing files over the Internet. So are you debating that the DMCA was around in 1998 (it was) or that the MPAA/RIAA supported it (it did) or that people where sharing files at that time (it was). It might not have been as high speed as it is these days, but I remember having a 1.5 or 3mbit cable modem connection my sophmore year in college (Fall of 1998) in my apartment. | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD | Nice! Well I guess that's one way to get out of a contract. 
You know though, if a company tells me it doesn't want my money, that's fine with me. Even if I had to do without any type of Internet service, I would cheerfully continue to not pay a company to treat me like crap. -- "Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|
 |  | | Re: Nice! Wait until they tell you that even though you are disconnected, you will still need to pay the ETF.  | |
|
 |  |  ThalerPremium join:2004-02-02 Los Angeles, CA kudos:3 | Re: Nice! I'd likely tell them to stuff it where the sun don't shine. Disconnect me for six months? You better believe:
A. I'm not paying for those six months. B. I'm finding a different ISP. | |
|
 |  |  | | there is no ETF/Contract with Suddenlink unless you're a business. | |
|
 | | I hate when corporations try to pass the blame I hate when corporations try to pass the blame for policies on law.
Like gamestop in my area requiring ID for M rated games. There is no law in my city or state to require it. I'm 27 and they still make me dig out my ID saying that it is the law they see it. | |
|
 |  |
 |  | | said by corinthos:I hate when corporations try to pass the blame for policies on law. Like gamestop in my area requiring ID for M rated games. There is no law in my city or state to require it. I'm 27 and they still make me dig out my ID saying that it is the law they see it. ya well 3 different states I have lived in all the Wal-Marts did the same thing.... They didnt just ask to see your ID they actually had to input your date in the computer before let them check you out.. | |
|
 |  Reviews:
·Skybeam.net
| said by corinthos:I'm 27 and they still make me dig out my ID saying that it is the law they see it. and you continue to shop there, so it must not be that big of an issue for you | |
|
 Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium join:2002-03-03 USA kudos:4 1 edit | Following their TOS; but blaming law for PR reasons Suddenlink screwed up PR-wise. They had the right under their TOS to do what they did, but lied to make it look like they weren't the bad guy. But they got caught & called out on it. Now they look like morons. Whatever exec dreamed up the lie should get fired for incompetence. | |
|
 | | But Suddenlink may be right... But Karl, take a look at section 512(i). Terminating repeat infringers isn't an absolute requirement, but ISPs must do so if they want to avail themselves of the safe harbor:
(i) Conditions for Eligibility. (1) Accommodation of technology. The limitations on liability established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if the service provider (A) has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service providers system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service providers system or network who are repeat infringers . . . | |
|
 |  jasso join:2004-11-15 Chico, TX | Re: But Suddenlink may be right... The point here is that there is no law requiring the ISP to boot the users.
Since the law only states the requirement for an optional legal status, these ISPs trying to claim that the law forces them do it are plain lying. | |
|
 |  |  | | Re: But Suddenlink may be right... It looks like Suddenlink is right. It isn't an optional legal status, unless the ISP likes the idea of being liable for copyright infringement. 512(i) seems to say that if an ISP does not have a reasonable policy for disconnecting repeat users, it is not protected by the DMCA safe harbor provisions, in the event a copyright holder decides to sue the ISP because of a repeat offender.
Suddenlink FTW.
In fact, as I understood the DMCA, the ISP is required to remove the infringement or cut off service until the customer removes it or ceases it. 512(i) seems to say that a pattern of infringement must be a cause for permanent disconnection. | |
|
 |  |  |  jasso join:2004-11-15 Chico, TX | Re: But Suddenlink may be right... said by dmca 512i :
It looks like Suddenlink is right. It isn't an optional legal status, unless the ISP likes the idea of being liable for copyright infringement. Ok, but where is the law stating that they are required to have safe harbor protection?
said by dmca 512i :
512(i) seems to say that if an ISP does not have a reasonable policy for disconnecting repeat users, it is not protected by the DMCA safe harbor provisions, in the event a copyright holder decides to sue the ISP because of a repeat offender. Yes, this is correct. If they don't have those policies, then they may not have protection from lawsuits. But this still isn't the same as legally requiring the ISP to have safe harbor protection.
said by dmca 512i :
512(i) seems to say that a pattern of infringement must be a cause for permanent disconnection. There is no dictation of how long the disconnection must be, only that there be a policy in place and the users notified of such a policy in order to have the protection.
In short, there is no legal requirement for the ISP to have safe harbor protection, so they are not legally obligated to have such policies in place. They are only required if they choose to have safe harbor protection. The ISP trying to claim that they are legally bound to kick you off is still a lie. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  | | Re: But Suddenlink may be right... quote: Yes, this is correct. If they don't have those policies, then they may not have protection from lawsuits. But this still isn't the same as legally requiring the ISP to have safe harbor protection.
You are making a distinction without a difference. No ISP is going to operate without immunity from the copyright violations committed by its customers. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  jasso join:2004-11-15 Chico, TX | Re: But Suddenlink may be right... said by dmca 512i :
No ISP is going to operate without immunity from the copyright violations committed by its customers. But that is still their own choice to do so. There is no law requiring them to have the status.
That is the distinction. It's the ISP choosing to take the more profitable/less risky path, not that they are constricted along that path by law. | |
|
 iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 | Call it TOS, don't call it the law Companies have the right to put whatever they want in their TOS. However it's their TOS/policy, and shoould not be confused with the law of the land. It's that simple. | |
|
 |  duranr join:2006-10-14 Leonia, NJ | Re: Call it TOS, don't call it the law So if their TOS says they can shoot you in the knee-cap after the 4th copyright infringement, then it's okay because it's in the TOS? Rethink your statement.
No, they cannot put whatever they like in the TOS. Especially if something they stipulate is against the law. | |
|
 |  |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 | Re: Call it TOS, don't call it the law It is not illegal to cut your internet off after an arbitrary number of C&D letters. | |
|
 |  |  |  kamm join:2001-02-14 Brooklyn, NY | Re: Call it TOS, don't call it the law It should be - this is one of the absolutely ILLEGAL part of the rotten DMCA, to task private, for-profit corporations to do any kind of law enforcement. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 | Re: Call it TOS, don't call it the law Companies have the right to refuse service to a consumer, for whatever reason. It's their prerogative to lose potential revenue... | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  kamm join:2001-02-14 Brooklyn, NY | Re: Call it TOS, don't call it the law That's a different issue. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 | Re: Call it TOS, don't call it the law As long as companies don't say that you're violating the law when you aren't, it isn't. | |
|
 | | If your money isn't green enough for them... ...then go somewhere else-the FCC claims there's ALL THIS COMPETITION out there-so much so that telcos and cablecos can do whatever they want.
HUH? you can't find it? Too bad! | |
|
 Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| Another lie another issue to be ignored NOTHING will come of this because there is no one in Washington that is willing to do anything about these perpetual lies and mis-conduct coming from these ISPs. They will continue to over-charge, lie, falsify information and will continue to get away with it. The lesson here is that the consumer does not have deep enough pockets to get any legal protection from the predatory, discriminatory and illegal activities of the Feds and their bedfellows the Various Service providers. As I write, the Feds are calling for a method to wiretap,intercept and break the security of ANY and ALL forms of communication over the Internet all falling under "National security" needs which includes any and all of your financial /banking activities. Can anyone else see the writing on the wall? Scares the hell out of me! | |
|
 gatorkramKaBOOM BabyPremium join:2002-07-22 Winterville, NC kudos:2 Reviews:
·Suddenlink
| From my cold dead hands... Looks like I might have to change my signature, and icon...
You can take my freedom, my privacy, and anything else, but you can never take my internet.... Oh....wait...
What country is this again?
In Soviet Russia, Internet disconnects you... -- Give me bandwidth or give me death! »/testhistory/661871/4f240 | |
|
 | | Pathetic attitudes all around Have any of you whining little b****s ever owned a company? God, all of you sound like you still live with mommy and daddy.
Here's the deal: Internet is a service, not a right. The company that provides that service can either choose to sell it to you or not. Kinda like "no shirt, no shoes, no service". Follow me so far?
If you don't like the rules, shut the hell up and go find a different ISP already.
Now, as for the service reps lying about whether or not they're required to dump your service under the law, I can kind of understand that. I run an ISP and if any of you aren't familiar with the CALEA requirement, you should read up on it.
At any time I can be approached by law enforcement, and be required to do something about those customers trading illegal files on MY network. Which means I'm wasting MY otherwise productive time having to play IP traffic cop.
You really think I want to deal with that? That I want to hang my ass out there for some no-life loser who thinks the world owes him every copywritten work he wants for free?
I'll tell those lawbreaking customers any damn thing I want when I have to terminate their service, and I could care less whether or not they get their feelings hurt over it.
Maybe they should get a freaking job and go buy that movie or CD instead of just expecting to use my network to facillitate their crime. That's right, I said crime. Last time I checked, stealing was still a crime. | |
|
 |  a333A hot cup of integrals please join:2007-06-12 Rego Park, NY Reviews:
·Cingular Wireless
| Re: Pathetic attitudes all around said by jim_p_price7:Have any of you whining little b****s ever owned a company? God, all of you sound like you still live with mommy and daddy. A mature start I am sure...
said by jim_p_price7:Here's the deal: Internet is a service, not a right. The company that provides that service can either choose to sell it to you or not. Kinda like "no shirt, no shoes, no service". Follow me so far? If you don't like the rules, shut the hell up and go find a different ISP already. Okay... if you REALLY like losing customers, I will take my business somewhere else.
said by jim_p_price7:Now, as for the service reps lying about whether or not they're required to dump your service under the law, I can kind of understand that. I run an ISP and if any of you aren't familiar with the CALEA requirement, you should read up on it. At any time I can be approached by law enforcement, and be required to do something about those customers trading illegal files on MY network. Which means I'm wasting MY otherwise productive time having to play IP traffic cop. Ehhh... CALEA refers to a bill passed during the Clinton era (circa 1994) that required telecom companies to make customer comms records AVAILABLE for access by law enforcement... dunno what that has to do with somehow having to boot your customers...
said by jim_p_price7:I'll tell those lawbreaking customers any damn thing I want when I have to terminate their service, and I could care less whether or not they get their feelings hurt over it. Maybe they should get a freaking job and go buy that movie or CD instead of just expecting to use my network to facillitate their crime. That's right, I said crime. Last time I checked, stealing was still a crime. Nice try, but copyright infringement != "stealing"... under the DMCA it was and still IS a CIVIL offense... not criminal. Next time, if you're going to (fail at) quoting the law, at least try to get SOME of it right...
-a333 -- Physics: Will you break the laws of physics, or will the laws of physics break you? If physicists stand on each other's shoulders, computer scientists stand on each other's toes, and computer programmers dig each other's graves. | |
|
 |  | | said by jim_p_price7:Last time I checked, stealing was still a crime. Stealing is a crime, but being an indignant prick isn't. What's this world coming to? | |
|
 |  | | Actually ISP's have to offer you service in most municipalities. Based on criteria that was agreed upon between the ISP and the local gov't.
In order for ISPs to operate and provide service in a town/county the ISP agrees to a few things.
Like if there are 25 houses in 1 square mile they must provide service for every house. They can't pick and choose which house to provide service for.
This makes sense so the citizens of the city/county don't get screwed over by the ISP. Even politicians know the health of their districts relies upon a good infrastructure including electrictiy, water/sewer, phone, TV, Internet access etc. | |
|
 antdudeA Ninja AntPremium,VIP join:2001-03-25 kudos:2 | Don't some ISPs do this already? I recall Adelphia did this too. | |
|
 | | ISPs are allowed to refuse you service... According to certain Cox representatives, the ISPs stance is that they aren't required to offer you service period. And use of service is a wonderful privilege they grant us as paying customers and may revoke when it suits them.
With this issue getting more serious, where does it end? When there's only one high-speed option (not that silly 128Kbps broadband) in town and they decided to ban you as a customer based upon an allegation?
As dial-up dies, what do people do to gain internet access? ISPs don't want to be regulated, then they do silly practices like this. Whether they want to admit to the reality or not, the internet is about to become a utility.
I'm just worried how. | |
|
 kamm join:2001-02-14 Brooklyn, NY | +1 reason to GET RID OF the illegal DMCA and get FCC WORKING Seriously: this is exactly why we have the FCC, nothing else. | |
|
 |  | | Re: +1 reason to GET RID OF the illegal DMCA and get FCC WORKING said by kamm:Seriously: this is exactly why we have the FCC, nothing else. You mean it isn't to protect us from naked boobs on TV?  | |
|
 |  |  Reviews:
·Comcast
·Comcast Digital ..
| Re: +1 reason to GET RID OF the illegal DMCA and get FCC WORKING or fine tv/radio stations for saying fuck,piss,shit,etc even though it is after 10pm??? Cumon if a kid is watching a tv station or listening to radio after 10pm their parents need shot. My kids Will NOT be watching tv without me beside them after 10pm. | |
|
 |
|