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.
Re:Beat them to the punch (Score:5, Funny)
Its great news. If I get my neighbour's internet connections taken out my download speeds should shoot right up.
Re: (Score:2)
In the end, only the ISP and the ??AA wins.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Beat them to the punch (Score:4, Interesting)
Subscribers who receive three DMCA takedown notices are disconnected without compensation for a period of six months.
So the ISP wins by collecting money without having to provide any service to their "customers".
In fact, after banning everyone, the ISP can just sell all its assets to a new company for $1, and transferring all the employees to the new company. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Is this legal, even in the US? I realize that he who has the gold makes the rules, and it's a corporation versus a mere mortal, but even so this seems to be going a bit far.
Re:Beat them to the punch (Score:5, Funny)
Its great news. If I get my neighbour's internet connections taken out my download speeds should shoot right up.
Nevermind your neighbor... suppose I give you this box... if you push the button your internet speeds will shoot right up. But be forewarned... someone you don't know will be cut off the internet forever. Do you push the button? ;)
Re:Beat them to the punch (Score:5, Funny)
while (1) { press_button(); }
why, yes. yes, I would.
Re: (Score:2)
Cool. Tomorrow I'll ask someone =you= don't know the same question... ;)
Paraphrased from a weak movie (The Box) loosely based on a better short story (Button, Button).
Re:Beat them to the punch (Score:5, Funny)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiFKm6l5-vE [youtube.com]
this spoof is better than the actual movie.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Much better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PeRS0hOKyg [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If I could actually _pick_ the people who are disconnected, the ISP could charge me 10 times as much and I'd consider it a deal.
Re:Beat them to the punch (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
ISP: If you push that button too much, you'll go blind!
Mini-me: How many times can I push it and just need glasses?
Re: (Score:2)
Your question is an exercise in how greedy and selfish we humans can be, and the answer is very (seriously folks, step outside and have a good look at "the environment" these days).
Would be *much* more relevant if it disconnected somebody you DO know.
Re: (Score:2)
Would be *much* more relevant if it disconnected somebody you DO know.
The followup is actually more poignant: "Tomorrow I ask someone =you= don't know whether they'll push the button."
Re: (Score:2)
Luckily, I friended *everybody* on MySpace and Facebook. Let's see 'em find someone I don't know.
Okay, someone please turn my meds back on now?
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Ideally a few rich and powerful businesspeople would lose their connections because of this; once the lawsuits start flying that should take care of things.
The rich can always afford something better than residential grade Internet service at the mass market price. P2P is irrelevant when you have $50,000, $100,000, $250,000 and up invested in front projection home theater.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Beat them to the punch (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Beat them to the punch (Score:5, Interesting)
It sounds like Suddenlink has somewhat of a monopoly in your area. If that is the case, they are probably regulated by your local government. Although I am not optimistic this will have much effect, you should complain to the franchise authority / regulatory commission that oversees Suddenlink.
If enough people did, Suddenlink would have no choice but to deep-six this program.
Re: (Score:2)
What will you do if they kick you off in a few weeks?
Re:Beat them to the punch (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Beat them to the punch (Score:5, Interesting)
Step 2 - Go buy some cheap equipment and antennas ($100-1000 for a AP, ~$150-200 for each CPE)
Step 3 (optional) - Get an FCC license for some licensed spectrum if you're not using 900mhz/2.4/5Ghz. It's actually pretty inexpensive, maybe a a few hundred
dollars at most and that's it.
Step 4 - Rent tower space, depending on the area it could run $500-$10000. I'll guesstimate for a few antennas, probably $2000
This is all assuming you're a typical
a fear of heights.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
... and can safely climb a 200' tower without significant risk of killing yourself...
Yea. Not for everyone, even those that don't mind heights. Climbing a tower is NOT the same as climbing a wall, or looking over the edge of a skyscraper roof...
Re:Beat them to the punch (Score:4, Informative)
If you have not, consider heading over to the FCC's Broadband website [broadband.gov], and report a broadband dead zone, run their speed tests, etc. Get all your friends to do the same, even if they have to sign on with a dial-up internet connection to do it.
Who knows if it will make any difference, but they are building a database of underserved areas.... and there may be government action, incentives, etc, to improve matters now or in the future. I assume the more reports they get for an area from different people, the more likely someone is to take notice and move that area "higher up on the list" of areas that are suffering from poor choice, incumbent monopolization, etc.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No worries, if you tell us your IP address then we can cancel it for you. In fact as there is no penalty for submitting incorrect DMCA takedown requests the best thing to do would be to start reporting *every* suddenlink subscriber. I bet they would change their policy quickly enough.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
now that I have some options (dsl, cable) I'd immediately cancel if my isp followed suit.
Its not that I'm for or against dmca, frankly to me its a pandora box they can never close imo.
If people were proven without a doubt violated copyright then I could see disconnections. But without a
trial or whatever there is nothing to the accusations. No real proof, or even a proponderance of evidence.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (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: (Score:2)
I'd like to point out that Bush is no longer in office, and in any case, do you really think Bush or anyone else gives a fuck about your score on Farmville or your Slashdot murmurings ?
Really, you DO have a choice, and a lot better one than a lot of people here ... not wanting to take it because it might upset the delicately balanced tin-foil hat you are wearing is a different issue.
Re:Beat them to the punch (Score:4, Interesting)
Even more interesting would be to examine their IP space, and send DMCA notices to all of them. This could be something that 4chan can do. Eventually, you'll have 3 notices sent to each and every IP address which should mean they've disconnected everyone. After all, if they do it blatantly, they might just not bother doing the necessary legwork to verify every notice.
Let's just see what happens when their entire customer base gets disconnected and start filing petitions with their state attorney-general over loss of service they've paid for.
Keep doing this and they'll find out what life's like to be without revenue for 6 months - disconnected users won't continue paying for service they don't get, after all.
Re: (Score:2)
I can dig it, so long as I don't have to do it.
Put them out of business! (Score:5, Funny)
OK, everybody start submitting DMCA reports. They'll be out of subscribers in no time flat.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Isn't that technically committing perjury? Not that I've ever heard about anyone facing consequences for such things...
Re:Put them out of business! (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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:Put them out of business! (Score:5, Informative)
A DMCA notification requires:
Notice the placement of the "and". To make the precedence explicit:
You only perjure yourself if you misrepresent yourself as representing a rights holder. Any other specific claims in the notice do not matter. If you represent a rights holder you can accuse whoever you want without fear of being prosecuted for perjury.
Re: (Score:2)
That would only be the part about being the copyright holder (or on their authority) of the work you claim is infringed. To be sued for any of the rest you have to match:
(f) Misrepresentations. Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section
(1) that material or activity is infringing, or
(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,
shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyri
Re: (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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
We might want to save that power for when we really need it. The first time we use it will also be the last, before it's quickly put into law that only large corporations get the power to censor the net through DMCA.
Re: (Score:2)
Better yet, issue DMCA takedown requests for the board of directors.
Their contract terms are what they are... (Score:5, Insightful)
...but the reference to the DMCA is horseshit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
... DMCA is horseshit.
I wholeheartedly concur.
Re:Their contract terms are what they are... (Score:4, Interesting)
They are probably referring to this, in section 512:
`(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 provider's system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network who are repeat infringers; and
`(B) accommodates and does not interfere with standard technical measures.
Re: (Score:2)
At the very least arguable. The "safe harbor" provisions of the DMCA (absent which, an ISP is per se liable for copyright infringement, at least under pre-DMCA precedent, see, e.g., Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Frena, 839 F.Supp. 1552, 1559 (M.D. Fla., 1993)) apply only to the extent an ISP "has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate
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.
This is actually not that bad (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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:This is actually not that bad (Score:5, Insightful)
You're assuming the complaints are legitimate. Your assumption is wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would guess that proving--beyond a reasonable doubt, as it is a criminal matter--that it was willful rather than a mistake is difficult in most cases. After all, it is not illegal to make a statement that is false if you genuinely believe it to be true.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You assume the complaints are illegimate. But where is the proof your assumption is right?
No, the problem is that you ASSUME that *each and every single complaint* is *always* legitimate.
They've already had cases thrown out of court because they got their basic facts wrong. So there's *at least* one case of proven failure to be 100% correct - therefore the ASSUMPTION that they're always correct is INVALID.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's one notable example [washington.edu]. I'm sure you can find [lmgtfy.com] many others.
Part of the problem is that filing a DMCA notice requires no concrete evidence of wrongdoing, and that the automated systems used in detecting infringement are far from perfect.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is actually not that bad (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:This is actually not that bad (Score:5, Informative)
it's really not that bad of a deal. Basically, if the RIAA/MPAA sees your IP address, instead of trying to extort you for money, they just tell TWC, who redirects you to an angry-sounding webpage next time you try to use the Internet. You click "Accept" or whatever, and then the problem goes away. No subpoenas, no lawsuits. You can do this twice. It's not until the third time that something actually bad happens, and if you're incompetent enough to get caught three times, you shouldn't be on the Internet.
You sir are a complete idiot.
I've had noticed issued against IP addresses on my network that *have never been active*, not ever.
It is literally not physically possible for said IP address to have *ever* issued a packet. Their reporting mechanisms are *broken*, it is not just possible, but *likely* that you will be "issued with a notice" even though you have never violated copyright ever.
Some people will have their only possible internet connection dropped with extreme prejudice for at least six months even though they have not done anything wrong.
Countdown... (Score:2)
Why Random? (Score:2)
The real reason... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
heavy downloaders=pirates after all
Or maybe netflix users. I replaced cable with internet video including netflix, I bet I am quite the heavy downloader.
Re: (Score:2)
"heavy downloaders=pirates after all"
Yep, lemme tell you, I'm pirating those HD videos off of Vimeo, OFFERED FREELY FOR DOWNLOAD.
Re: (Score:2)
Quick question (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...only if there are SLA agreements. That, and most business customers of a (generally) consumer ISP are going to be fairly small, and without a war chest for litigation. There are exceptions (Verizon stands out as one), but mostly this is the case.
Most of your bigger businesses (and therefore those more able to litigate) will have providers who also provide SLAs, and have contracts that can actually be negotiated, given the money involved (ISPs such as Integra, AT&T, et al). The smaller guys with the "
DMCA does NOT require disconnection (Score:5, Informative)
People should drop this company, ASAP.
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".
Re: (Score:2)
termination in appropriate circumstances
See that word I bolded?
We call that a loophole so big you could drive a truck through it. You just decide only a criminal conviction for copyright infringement is the appropriate case and you put that in your subscriber agreement.
Submit DMCA reports on management of suddenlink (Score:5, Informative)
Submit DMCA reports on the board and management of suddenlink. They all most likely have full speed connections. Maybe you think they are misusing your IP.
The policy allows no review of the DMCA, so it would be interesting to see how that develops.
Company name:
Cequel Communications Holdings I, LLC
and from their web page:
Mr. Jerald L. Kent Chairman
Mary Meduski EVP - Chief Financial Officer Age: 51 314-315-9603
Mr. Thomas P. McMillin Chief Operating Officer and Executive Vice President Age: 48
Ralph Kelly SVP - Treasurer 314-315-9403
Mr. James Fox Chief Accounting Officer and Senior Vice President Age: 40
Mike Pflantz VP - Corporate Finance 314-315-9341
Mr. Terry M. Cordova Chief Technology Officer and Senior Vice President Age: 49
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
There's the problem right there - they're all old people. If only old people knew how awesome pirating was, they'd probably jump on board instead of trying to shut it down.
Well, maybe. But they're the ones with the money to actually pay for that shit, so they might not.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There's the problem right there - they're all old people. If only old people knew how awesome pirating was, they'd probably jump on board instead of trying to shut it down.
Well, maybe. But they're the ones with the money to actually pay for that shit, so they might not.
Old people only care about getting up early, and ruining the fun of anyone younger then them.
They don't actually care about this stuff, but they do enjoy pissing off the younger generation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Submit DMCA reports on management of suddenlink (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
New Domain (Score:2, Informative)
suddenunlink.com is now a registered domain name that points to the original article.
New name? (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe they should change their name to SuddenDisconnect?
Major Areas of Operation... (Score:2)
Major Areas of Operation: Texas, West Virginia, Louisiana, Arkansas, North Carolina, Oklahoma
Oh.
Need to report suddenlink's site (Score:2)
I see tons of frivolous items that could be reported on throughout their site to the DMCA. Just start submitting and eventually 3 notices will make it through....Should be great to see Suddenlink have to take their own site down.
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.
i'm a Canadian, and I still think this stinks; (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been reading the TF thread for about an hour now, and I still can't help but think this is a horrible and stinky decision;
I've written Suddenlink to communicate my dissatisfaction :
@SuddenLink : "I've contacted Suddenlink in order to communicate my dissatisfaction. I was given the opportunity to move to an area for a job, that was serviced by Suddenlink. Their policy was the deciding factor in me choosing to reject the job opportunity.
Way to go Suddenlink, not only have you cost yourselves a reliable customer - your policy is affecting immigration to your country."
Their response was to play dumb ;
"I apologize, sir! But I'm not quite sure as to what disconnect policy you're referring to. We do not have any cancellation fees or contracts, and you're free to leave our company without any charge or penalty. "
To which I replied and pointed them in the direction of the TorrentFreak article ;
"The disconnect policy in which I refer to, can be found here;
http://torrentfreak.com/us-isp-disconnects-alleged-pirates-for-6-months-100924/ [torrentfreak.com]"
And their reply was ;
@SuddenLink : "Thank you for your email in regards to the DMCA Violation. I appreciate the opportunity to assist you today.
I apologize that you do not approve of this, sir.'
wow... I'm glad that they 'apologize' that I don't approve of their policy. Great customer service skills - both on a CSR level and Company-Wide, that this is the best response they can come up with.
Time Warner does it too (Score:2)
I got a notice from Time Warner about three years ago regarding a movie I was supposedly sharing. They suspended my internet until I clicked a button promising I wouldn't pirate anyone. They also warned me I only had one warning left (i.e. on my third strike they would discontinue my service).
Re: (Score:2)
Adelphia did this too. Nothing new.
Funny how it's the two-bit operators .... (Score:2)
NONE Of the *big* service providers, who run a large, successful, and well managed network are jumping on this bandwaagon.
This ias *nothing* to do with "catching criminals" or 'stopping piracy', it's a trivial manner for them to legitimize disconnecting the heavy users so they can continue to run a network without having it implode.
Failure to run your business properly is not a good reason to pound your customers in the ass.
Out of business plan.... (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Get customer list.
2. Send three DMCA takedowns per customer, no merit to claims required.
3. PROFIT!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
From the PeerBlock FAQ
7. Does this mean my P2P downloading is completely safe now?
Not necessarily. While many people do use IP Filtering software like PeerBlock to help "protect" themselves from being sued for copyright infringement, it is not 100% protection. In fact some people believe that using blocklists like this are completely useless. Others disagree, and believe that even if it's not 100% safe, it still lets them download files more safely. Sometimes they invoke the "Bear Principle": when runn