US ISP Adopts Three-Strikes Policy 280
Andorin writes "Suddenlink, a United States ISP that serves nineteen states, has implemented a three-strikes policy. Subscribers who receive three DMCA takedown notices are disconnected without compensation for a period of six months. According to TorrentFreak, the takedown notices do not have to be substantiated in court, which effectively means that subscribers can be disconnected based on mere accusations. In justifying the policy, Suddenlink turns to an obscure provision of their Terms of Service, but also claims that they are required by the DMCA to disconnect repeat offenders."
Beat them to the punch (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are a customer of theirs, immediately cancel your service and tell them why you are doing it. that ought to send the right message.
Their contract terms are what they are... (Score:5, Insightful)
...but the reference to the DMCA is horseshit.
School Rules. (Score:5, Insightful)
Get a movement within their customer base and employ the classic school scenario where a rule doesn't work if it has to be applied to everyone. Start filing tens of thousands of DMCA take down notices for suspected violations. If their policy is as described, cutting service to that many people will put a direct stop to it.
Re:This is actually not that bad (Score:5, Insightful)
> if you're incompetent enough to get caught three times, you shouldn't be on the Internet
Three accusations. Not three convictions.
The real reason... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is actually not that bad (Score:5, Insightful)
You're assuming the complaints are legitimate. Your assumption is wrong.
Re:Their contract terms are what they are... (Score:3, Insightful)
... DMCA is horseshit.
I wholeheartedly concur.
New name? (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe they should change their name to SuddenDisconnect?
Re:This is actually not that bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Put them out of business! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Beat them to the punch (Score:3, Insightful)
We don't need no due process... (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course, it's not like so many ISPs don't have a ton of other obscure terms that allow them to terminate your service on a whim.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are a customer of theirs, immediately cancel your service and tell them why you are doing it. that ought to send the right message.
That it does.
It tells them that they have shed another geek who clogs their pipes and will never upgrade his service.
Re:Put them out of business! (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't that technically committing perjury?
Of course it is. That's why everyone with half a brain who's heard of these three-strikes rules in the US and abroad wants to rip people like this a new one--because they enable perjurers to be successful at abusing the law without court review.
Of course, if you were to send three bogus DMCA takedown notices to the ISP CEO's home--or to their home office--they would notice the fact that it's a crime and cry foul (or simply break policy and ignore them), but they are more than willing to enable criminals as long as they don't see the blowback themselves.
Re:This is actually not that bad (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah yes. You plan on filing those lawsuits yourself? Be forewarned - he who represents himself has a fool for a client. Not to mention that they can be time intensive. You plan on hiring someone? That'll cost you a pretty penny. And lobbying your state AG? He's too busy running his campaign for governor. Now if you can contribute a few 100k to his campaign, maybe something can be arranged...
tl;dr: this works only if you're rich and connected. Otherwise, you're part of the unwashed masses, unfit to be paid attention.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:DMCA does NOT require disconnection (Score:5, Insightful)
How would you comply with this without disconnecting repeat infringers, counselor?
You wait until the person is convicted in court of infringing at least twice, of course. The RIAA's word should not be sufficient evidence for considering a customer a "repeat infringer".
You've left out a couple of plausible scenarios (Score:5, Insightful)
4. The methods used by copyright holders to identify infringement are not very reliable, so you get flagged without ever having done anything wrong.
5. Somebody who's out to get you makes a false complaint and your ISP is too lazy to investigate, so you get flagged without ever having done anything wrong.
Re:Beat them to the punch (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm a subscriber, and this is easier said than done. My only other choice in this locality is AT&T, who are infamous for bending over and spreading for Bush's illegal wiretapping.
Re:Put them out of business! (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't that technically committing perjury? Not that I've ever heard about anyone facing consequences for such things...
It is, but that doesn't seem to be stopping the bogus DMCA complaints. If large corporations are getting away with it, why shouldn't everyone else?
Re:Submit DMCA reports on management of suddenlink (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Beat them to the punch (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Put them out of business! (Score:2, Insightful)
Isn't that technically committing perjury? Not that I've ever heard about anyone facing consequences for such things...
It is, but that doesn't seem to be stopping the bogus DMCA complaints. If large corporations are getting away with it, why shouldn't everyone else?
Because you do not send enough money to your elected leaders.
Re:Put them out of business! (Score:5, Insightful)
Technically yes, but a "good faith" belief that someone is doing something illegal is pretty fucking vague. If previous court ruling are any indication, hearing a rumor about "someone" pirating "something" is probably all you need to justify yourself.
I think you may be understating a characteristic of the United States legal system. When an oligarch harms a peasant, the peasant is found guilty. When a peasant harms another peasant, or when an oligarch harms another oligarch, the written code of law is used. In the case of one peasant accusing another peasant under the DMCA, the accusing peasant is subject to legal accountability.
Re:Don't let the door hit you on the way out. (Score:1, Insightful)
Indeed.
This injustice is merely one gust of wind in the hurricane. Data has value, and all things that have value are controlled by the rich, not by the poor. There is no principle of justice or reason that they will not trample in order to ensure that they maintain their power over you.
The only way to get others to treat you justly is to force them.
And we are all far to complacent for that.
Re:Beat them to the punch (Score:3, Insightful)
You'd be hard pressed to find a court that would require you to keep paying for a service that the company specifically decided not to provide.