Comcast Warns Infringing Customers Of Abuse 630
tm writes "Comcast recently sent out letters to DMCA-infringing customers, informing them of their illegal downloading transgressions. The notice clearly states that Comcast has been asked by the copyright owner, MGM, to notify the individual of their actions and demand that the downloaded file(s) be immediately removed. In addition, the individual must write a return letter, which consists of an explanation and an apology. It appears that if a valid explanation is given, such as 'I don't know how to secure my access point and my neighbors run wild on my connection,' then both Comcast and MGM will be happy. If the explanation is not satisfactory however, they may proceed with fines, termination of service, ect. It will be interesting to see how this plays out and if this will influence other ISPs to go after customers at Hollywood's request."
Goodbye Comcast... (Score:3, Insightful)
They seem to be the only one standing up for their customers' rights.
Re:Goodbye Comcast... (Score:5, Insightful)
Rights? The right to trade a copy of "Walking Tall" recorded in theater with a camera (judging by the filename)? Backing up a DVD you purchased is one thing, but distributing a file, whether from a DVD or filmed in theater, does not fall within your rights.
The only reason you claim you're going to switch to Verizon is not to protect your rights but because you feel you have a lower chance of being held accountable for your illegal activites.
Re:Goodbye Comcast... (Score:5, Informative)
Verizon appealed the court's decision because it opens the door for anyone who makes a mere allegation of copyright infringement to gain complete access to private subscriber information without the due process protections afforded by the courts.
They don't condone piracy, but they want to cover their customers in case of abuse. It's a very reasonable position and it makes me glad I'm a Verizon customer(though actually they are the only broadband availiable in my area).
Indeed... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Mr Pedo chats up young girl nearby. Maybe even gets a picture.
2. Mr Pedo makes a frivolous subpoena request, claiming that girl's IP was sharing his copyrighted something, using a fake ID.
3. ISP can only comply.
4. Mr Pedo never files a lawsuit.
5.
[/Devil's advocate]
Re:Goodbye Comcast... (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, rights. (Score:4, Insightful)
Your insulated view may not allow you the perspective necessary for objectivity, but trust me, it is disputable whether or not an individual has the right to record "Walking Tall" in a theater with a camera and then distribute it. It is not a clear case as you would like to present it.
Would it be acceptable for someone to take an audio-only recording device to record the sound track for the movie? What if it was just a legal pad, and a pencil? Assume they know shorthand and could storyboard and transcribe it precisely. Is it immoral and/or illegal to transcribe, and describe the goings-on of the movie with a notepad and pencil? What if it was just someone's mind? What if Mr. Joe Hypothetical had eidetic memory and some expensive renderware on his PC at home. If he sees a Pixar movie and his mind, and software at home, enables him to recreate the movie exactly, should it be illegal?
What if you didn't have superhuman memory, or fancy software, but instead were just a great story-teller. Say you remembered the movie well and related all the details to your friends in an entertaining fashion. Is this copyright infringement too? Or what if you're not even a great story teller, but you remember the high points of the movie. Should it be illegal to divulge spoilers to those who have not paid? Are spoilers copyright infringement, do you think?
Humans already have the capacity to store, retrieve and relate information, you can't get around that fact! So the issue must be one of quality, right? The Valenti argument, that the "real problem" is that digital copies don't degrade. Well, what is the problem with recording from a theater? If you start with a degraded copy, isn't that great for the MPAA using that logic? If the issue isn't one of quality, it must be one of control. But where is the line drawn, when humans themselves have I/O and computational ability and when this is the direct root of human civilization?
If you pay for access to an idea, must you therefore relinquish control of your mind? That is what the argument reduces to.
Ponder TJ's [uchicago.edu] words:
It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the mora
Re:DMCA? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Goodbye Comcast... (connect the dots) (Score:5, Interesting)
It's actually intereting -- given Verizon's victories, why would Comcast play DMCA ball for MGM?
Could it have anything to do with Comcast's (recently abandoned) bid for Disney [cnn.com]? And Disney-MGM Studios [go.com]?
Playing megamedia connect-the-dots is fun!
Re:Goodbye Comcast... (connect the dots) (Score:5, Insightful)
Keep in mind, Comcast is also trying to sell you premium cable channels and video on demand. Any MGM movies obtained through p2p is potentially revenue lost to Comcast as well. I don't believe this would be a factor with Verizon, since they're not doing the cable thing.
Re:Goodbye Comcast... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think in the end MGM/Comcast learned from the Verizon issue and in this case MGM contacted Comcast and asked Comcast to pass on the news. I think this is a much nicer way to face the situatio than instantly trying to drag a slew of unknown people into court. Instead you ask the ISP to warn the unknown people and ask for apologies.
Hell, it' basically a "We know your doing it, we would rather not take the time to go after you, could you please stop" type of thing.
Re:Goodbye Comcast... (Score:4, Insightful)
I have Comcast at home and the service they provide works very well. I haven't tried Verizon, but my brother has that and it works well too (not quite as fast as my Comcast connection though).
In an unrelated question, has anyone tried the spray on products for defeating "speed cameras"? Found one listed at Phantom Plate [phantomplate.com] but don't know if the stuff really works. Probably should drive the speed limit more closely, but those darn cameras are going up everywhere in Maryland.
Re:Goodbye Comcast... (Score:5, Interesting)
> Only users who engage in illegal activities really have anything to worry about.
I read an interesting article this weekend in which various evangelical Christians (including one youth pastor) all encouraged P2P sharing of music by Christian artists for various reasons. All of the reasons given were variations on "it's helping spread the word" and "the Bible says that you shouldn't be concerned with money," which pretty well mirrors the "it's free advertising" and "rock stars already have enough money" logic that most file traders share.
When I started typing this, I had some point in mind about how when even evangelical Christians can ignore IP laws ("thou shalt not steal" being the original DMCA) without a second thought, media companies are definitely in trouble. I completely lost track of how to make that point, so feel free to mod me (-1, interesting, but only vaguely related, coherent, or on-topic).
Re:Goodbye Comcast... (Score:4, Insightful)
Christian musicians may or may not want to use P2P for distribution (as long as the artist truly own the rights). I guess it depends on how they support themselves financially. I know people shouldn't be concerned with money, but a person needs at least some level of income to survive (trying to recall the song, but the lyrics go something like: "money isn't everything but I'd like to see you survive without it").
As for the "rock stars already have enough money", that can be debated. I'm sure you'll find differing opinions on what an appropriate amount of money is. Consider their trade to that of other high paying careers (athletes, corporate execs, etc...) and determine who is making too much money. Most of us would say they all are, but that's probably based on our income. Take other people with very low or no income and they'll probably say that our income is too much too.
No matter how much one dislikes the DMCA, it's really just enforcing ownership rights. I know that I appreciate getting paid for things I create and would be pretty upset if people started stealing my work (in my case, software integration/development). My wife would be a little upset if I didn't get paid due to everyone getting my product for free.
If consumers don't like paying for goods, then they need to look at alternative products that meet their desires. While I can see some musicians embracing the "free" model, I imagine that most would like to earn their living from their music.
Re:Goodbye Comcast... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't remember anything about being guilty until proven innocent.
Your Defense.... (Score:5, Funny)
Look at the monkey!
Re:Goodbye Comcast... (Score:5, Insightful)
Who says they're guilty? This appears to be a case of "Hey, what you're doing here looks suspiciously like breaking the law and violating my copyrights. If that's true, how about you knock it off so I don't have to take you to court and prove that you're guilty. If it isn't true, or if someone else is doing it and you weren't aware of it, how about letting me know what's going on so I don't sue you and you have to hire a lawyer and all of that icky, expensive stuff? [1]"
If you object to this method, exactly how should the situation be handled?
[1] The cynic in me suggests that this is an attempt to scare people away without the bad publicity the RIAA got for suing 14 year olds. However, what's wrong with that? They DO have a right to protect their copyrighted material.
Re:Goodbye Comcast... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Goodbye Comcast... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Goodbye Comcast... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you were serious about that, you'd never be able to use the Internet again.
Re:Goodbye Comcast... (Score:5, Insightful)
When laws are injust,immoral and wrong,there are no laws.When laws are merely a device for the powerful to control the masses,there are no laws.When justice becomes the criminal,everyman becomes his own cop with just,moral and right written as law in his heart. - fly n. eye
Things that encourage less security are funny. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Things that encourage less security are funny. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Things that encourage less security are funny. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Things that encourage less security are funny. (Score:3, Funny)
Or maybe God is doing the same, building up a case for your eternal salvation?
I guess it depends on how you view the whole issue of downloading copyrightable material. Last I checked, "Thou shalt not download copyrighted material" wasn't in the
Re:Things that encourage less security are funny. (Score:3, Interesting)
A theory could come in the form that for a Christian everything comes from God, so he/she, as one of the God's children, is free to use it. Subsequent anarchy would be interesting to watch.
Re:Things that encourage less security are funny. (Score:5, Informative)
Not really. The point is that you should provide a means for your ISP to 'cover their ass' in the event that they get 'requested' to do something about you specifically.
It would be nice to have a standard letter that lists the reasons that would be acceptable to them the presence of this 'criminal activity' in an area that they have legal liablity.
In short, the issue of copying music books and movies has no answer. So no one cares if you do or don't do it. All anyone really cares about is whether it is going to create a problem for them.
If they (the **AAs) were truly serious about stopping copying, then people would be going to jail for long periods of time for selling hard disks. Like how people in the USA (for example 65-year-old Canadian comedian Tommy Chong) are sent to jail for selling painted glass tubes that might be used for , ohmygod!, smoking illegal herbs.
[By the way, the news broadcast of Mr. Chong's imprisonment was followed by an advert for corporate love drugs - expensive pills designed to increase woman's sexual response. Ask your doctor today!]
Anyway, what Comcast is trying to tell you is that if you share files (and you do), please make an effort to come up with a reasonable excuse for them to ignore you while still collecting your money and providing service.
That's what this is all about.
Re:Things that encourage less security are funny. (Score:5, Insightful)
This in fact, was a home movie created by myself as a spoof on the real movie. One of my children turned on this so called bittorrent and shared the file by accident.
By downloading this file, you are now in infringement of my DMCA copyright on my work. Please remove the file, and all instances of this file off your servers and the "authorized agent" that is claiming it's their work.
I expect a apology from both Comcast, and the "authorized agent" in my mailbox by the end of the week.
Re:Things that encourage less security are funny. (Score:5, Funny)
Oh man.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Spam? Sure, go right ahead...
Non-DRMed p2p filetransfers? STOP IN THE NAME OF THE LAW
I guess this means I'd better clear out my queues/start encrypting things.
Re:Oh man.... (Score:5, Informative)
Look at what I have to block because of constant attempts by infected Comcast jackasses hitting my webserver.
Perhaps Comcast should worry about this more than what MGM is telling them to do. These are attempted intrusions that Comcast lets go without disabling (which they are able to do automatically).
66.130.171.0/24>80 66.189.242.0/24>80 66.41.0.0/16>80 66.131.84.0/24>80
66.171.26.0/24>80 24.118.53.0/24>80 66.131.98.0/24>80 66.44.125.0/24>80
66.229.130.0/24>80 66.69.155.0/24>80 66.130.145.0/24>80 66.171.148.0/24>80
66.130.128.0/24>80 66.130.102.0/24>80 66.63.82.0/24>80 66.171.201.0/24>80
24.118.11.0/24>80 66.65.30.0/24>80 66.131.138.0/24>80 66.120.58.0/24>80
66.131.241.0/24>80 66.176.82.0/24>80 66.130.20.0/24>80 66.131.183.0/24>80
66.130.178.0/24>80 66.130.20.0/24>80 66.44.252.0/24>80 66.130.252.0/24>80
66.130.55.0/24>80 66.130.66.0/24>80 66.178.17.0/24>80 66.48.151.0/24>80
66.131.101.0/24>80 66.233.252.0/24>80
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Excellent (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Excellent (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe I'm not reading this right, but this is NOTHING like the RIAA, this is for DOWNLOADING, not SHARING, and not just that it's for downloading something that the plaintiff has created and put up for distribution, entrapment anyone?
On second though, can't be, can it - if they put up the
Their own stupidity. (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems like a major bad idea to start doing that, just for the hell of it. They open themselves up to the same charge as all the p2p filesharing apps---that it is they who should be held responsible, as enablers, rather than the individual who is actually breaking the law.
I mean really, if you were the RIAA, who would you rather sue? Some joker who has 50 cents in his bank account and 11k on his credit card, or Comcast?
Re:Excellent (Score:3, Insightful)
We've got corporations acting as surrogates spying on customers now
Re:Excellent (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Excellent (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Excellent (Score:5, Insightful)
Untrue. As far as I know, the file provider (from whom I'm downloading), has obtained the right to distribute the file. I'm not an entertainment lawyer, I don't understand what distribution contracts there are for every movie ever made, nor am I required to by law.
Re:Excellent (Score:4, Interesting)
The point is, you obtained this in a way that is consistant with "normal" channels of distrobution. The store commonly sells cigerettes that are leagle, The yardsale's commonly have books availible that are leagle, and the internet commonly haves files availible without charge. There is a fine line of when you knew. this sin't like someone is in an alley somewere selling you a television for 5 cents on the dollar. (even then if they (the seller)have a convincing story you have a good defense).
This specific case is even more dificule because the offending file has the name walking tall. This movie and name has been done before, there was even a tv series about it. The story is based on the life of a real sherif/cop and I believe even the name of a book about it. Is it the copy MGM owns the rights too or is it some backyard jedi night thing were kids put a play together and thier software picked up on it?
Re:Excellent (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see a problem with this - if there is a valid reason, MGM drops the issue and nothing happens. If you try a bs excuse, they have the option of persuing it in a court of law where you can explain the reason to the judge/jury. It might work, it might not.
Personally, it's the way things like this should be dealt with. You've got a chance to talk with them before the legal stuff starts and explain why you've got the righ
so... (Score:5, Interesting)
How this for a letter: "Yes, I might have said content, I apologize if I do. Why I have it? I plead the 5th"
Five Words (Score:3)
Re:Five Words (Score:3, Funny)
Re:so... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:so... (Score:3, Informative)
If the company sues you, they will depose you or put you on the stand, and you will be (under oath, and under penalty of perjury) obliged to tell the whole and unvarnished truth.
Re:so... (Score:5, Funny)
Works for Presidents, should work for anybody.
Re:so... (Score:5, Informative)
Yeesh, Slashdot has gone from merely sensationalizing stories to just plain making shit up. I can't wait for the next Linux Kernel release announcement, which I'm sure will end up saying something like "500 University students sued for using Linux; now in Guantanamo Bay"
Re:so... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent poster is absolutely right. What's posted on Slashdot is egregiously misleading.
The Slashdot article states (emphasis mine):
Please note I am not a Comcast customer and I have no relationship of any sort with Comcast.
Ok, point by point:
Let me emphasize my last point: there is nothing new here. Comcast is doing what it must do under the DMCA, and it's doing what every other ISP has to do. Your complaint is with the DMCA, not Comcast.
My complaint is with the article submitter and, even more so, the Slashdot editor who submitted this: neither apparently took the time to read the linked Comcast letter (even though, to their credit, they did link it.
It's important that Slashdot and its readers rail against the all too common erosion of our rights, and I applaud Slashdot for doing so. But it only harms our cause when we waste time and hemorrhage credibility raging against straw men with no basis in reality. Let's salvage some credibility by Slashdot readers -- and editors -- admitting that, with this "article", we simply screwed up.
Re:so... (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Send threatening letters. Have user implicate himselves simply by trying to defend themselves.
2. ???
3. Profit!
Reminds me of high school (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Reminds me of high school (Score:3, Informative)
My wife is a teacher and they have to administer state tests every year. She tells me they have to sign something stating they'll abide by the rules with possible punishments including stripping the license to teach of the offending teacher. I try to point out to her that she's engaging in a contract that only has terms written for one party. She and every other teachers fails to see my point saying that they "have to" sign it. I
Re:so... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're a Comcast customer and get threatened, I'd suggest just switching to another company and ignoring their threats. If you're going to respond to them, write them a letter explaining that one of their paying customers is cancelling their service and going with one of their competitors because of their threats. It wouldn't hurt to let them know you'll be recommending Verizon or SpeakEasy [speakeasy.net] or someone else to your friends and family from now on, instead of Comcast. When they eventually connect the dots that "threatening our customers on behalf of the IP cartel = less customers = less money," maybe they'll take a stand like Verizon did and protect their customers.
This also sounds like another good reason to switch to an encrypted P2P architecture like Freenet [sourceforge.net].
Apology? (Score:5, Informative)
Possible letter (Score:5, Funny)
I apologize for being such a cheap bastard but I just can't see myself paying 9 dollars for a movie ticket, 5 dollars for a popcorn, and 4 dollars for a pop.
I also apologize for not being willing to wait 6-8 months for a movie to be released to video and dvd as I am such a lazy fool that I do not want to spend the time or money involved in walking or driving to the video store.
Most of all... I am quite sorry for getting caught, I promise you that that will not happen again.
Sincerely,
A. Nonymous
P.S. I do not agree with or support any of what I just wrote in this hypothetical and mythical letter.
I think the poster misunderstood the letter (Score:5, Insightful)
You only need to counter-notify if you believe you've received this notice based on a non-infringing file. No mention of any letter of explanation/apology is made in the linked document, so unless the poster has a different letter that he didn't post he's entirely misunderstood this notice. Otherwise, turn off your torrent and let them know that it's no longer there. If you feel the obligation to make up an excuse when you do that, go ahead.
IANAL, but I don't think I'd offer any explanation besides "Thanks for the notice. I have ensured that no such file is available." unless pressed into it by further action from the copyright holder. Like talking to the police, ISTM that the less you say, the better.
Whats worse? (Score:5, Funny)
BitTorrent (Score:5, Interesting)
Sample response (Score:5, Funny)
Chewbacca defense!
So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Note Comcast didn't assume guilt, they made it clear they are passing on information, and provide options of remedy as per DMCA.
Seems pretty clean to me. What is comcast to do? Just take a lawsuit and pass off the cost to all the subscribers?
DMCA (Score:5, Interesting)
There's nothing in the letter that leads to this conclussion. They say:
"Comcast will provide a copy of the counter notification to the party who sent the original notification of claimed infringement. We will them follow the DMCA's procedures with respect to a received counter notification ".
Any lawyer out there who can specify the DMCA's procedures in such a case? Does pleading ignorant work? It would be too easy
Child pornography (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess the RIAA and similar organisations mean more to Comcast then some little girl being abused..
Re:Worse Things (Score:3, Insightful)
The spidering/monitoring technology that MPAA develops today to take their movies off the net will eventually be used to cut off the streams of exploitive material. It's not like law enforcement has the budget to independently develop technology t
Re:Child pornography (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's very likely and not suprising that Comcast would be more concerned about pleasing the RIAA/MPAA/etc. than they would about volunterring assistance to law enforcment with tangential issues like trading child porn. Comcast's big business isn't law enforcement, it's providing entertainment programming to its cable subscribers. If they compromise their relationship with the studios then they may have trouble negotiating for better rates or even whole blocks of channels for their cable channels.
I used to work for a company which produced boxes for DirecTV and many of the most restrictive rules about the design were all about pleasing Hollywood. One of the first consideration for feature proposals (behind security of the DTV network) was how Hollywood would react to it. Those relationships are extremely important to cable/satellite operators and I think they're willing to do a lot to protect them.
It's unfortunate in some ways, but it certainly doesn't suprise me.
but (Score:5, Insightful)
Mods, please read this. (Score:4, Informative)
Ideally moderation separates the good stuff from the bad-- and this fails just as bad if everything is rated 0 than if everything is rated +5.
I know folks might be saying a lot of good things, but try to separate the *really* good stuff from the *sort-of* good stuff with mod points.
Make the mod system work better. Create less mediocre +5s
(attached to this comment because I think it's better than +5s higher up on the page)
RD
Apology? Explanation? (Score:5, Informative)
Dear Comcast (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Dear Comcast (Score:5, Insightful)
As shown by recent actions of the RIAA, they seem to be more interested in suing consumers (that is, a civil case or lawsuit) rather than trying to bring criminal charges.
I'm not sure you can use the Fifth Amendment as a defense if you're being sued by someone. You can be compelled by a judge to provide discovery (or something, I'm not sure I'm using the right term) and failure to comply could get you held in contempt of court.
I don't think you can simply refuse to provide any evidence that might incriminate yourself. If you could, I'm sure that defense would have been tried by many a CEO.
Re:Dear Comcast (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's look it up.
Nope, you cannot "plead the 5th" when a private party sues you.
How long before we see this? (Score:5, Interesting)
"By accessing this node you indicate that you are not now, nor have you ever been a law enforcement agent, postal worker, or employee of any Media corporation engaged in interstate commerce, nor are employed by any such organization."
More work for the lawyers, YIPPEE!
That does NOT work! (Score:4, Interesting)
That's a long standing urban legend [snopes.com]...
Standard reply (Score:3, Funny)
Once more I apologize for my ruthless actions on the internet, and beg your forgiveness, ________________.
Sincerely,
Joe Schmoe, Downloader
BTW I really, really, really, really hate the lameness filter.
The humanity... (Score:5, Funny)
ECT [ect.org]!?! I can't believe they can arbitrarily pursue punishments of this magnitude. How can they use ECT without a trial or a hearing at the least. Yet more proof that the US justice system has been perveted by our corporations.
Hell, governments can't use ECT on convicts in most first-world countries and we'll let fscking cable companies do it.
COX DOING THIS TOO (Score:5, Interesting)
BT is legal and I use it for Linux transfers.
They included a report that appeared generated by one of their spiders and was no proof of him doing anything far as I'm concerned. It was meant to scare him.
Also, the District of Colunbia v RIAA on Dec 20 2003, ruled transitory data across a network is NOT subject to the takedown provisions of the DMCA and as such, they have no right to discontinue his service. It's like making the phone company disconnect your phone for making an illegal phone call (which they can't do). Same thing.
The guy I know, didn't even go home. He called them back an hour later and told them, 'Nope, nothing there' and they turned it back on with Cox blaming his neighbors.
Sounds like a good reason to drop comcast (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sounds like a good reason to drop comcast (Score:5, Interesting)
That's super, but I have one option: Comcast. I'm nowhere near close enough to the CO for DSL, and unless they decide to run fiber to the small neighborhood in which I live (yeah, right), my only option for a long, long time is going to continue to be Comcast. I hate it, it sucks, and I'm annoyed by it. What can I do about it? Nothing.
Re:Sounds like a good reason to drop comcast (Score:3, Interesting)
The only way they'll stop this kind of activity is if they lose customers by doing it.
Except that the chances are that the other companies will soon follow suit. If they don't, they'll end up providing more bandwidth per customer than Comcast, which gives Comcast a competitive advantage. I run a small WISP and I do everything I can to hand customers who want to run P2P and so on to my competitors. And I saw an interview with the CEO of France Télécom a couple of months ago in which he more or
It's a bit of a stretch (Score:5, Informative)
"...Comcast request that you immediately remove the allegedly infringing works from the Service or Comcast will be forced to remove or block access to the works.
If you believe in good faith that the allegedly infringing works have been removed or blocked by mistake or misidentification, then you may send a counter notification to Comcast. Upon Comcast's receipt of a counter notification that satisfies the requirements of the DMCA, Comcast will provide a copy of the counter notification to the party who sent the original notification of claimed infringment. We will then follow the DMCA's procedures with respect to a received counter notification."
Since it is a bit torrent link they're talking about (if you go by the port number in the complaint) you could easily say that your child or something had to get 'the internet talk' and kill it as easily as that.
static IPs are part of the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:static IPs are part of the problem (Score:3, Interesting)
(Of course, dynamic IPs do make it harder for someone in the wild to track the activity of a particular user).
Dear Comcast.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Dear Comcast.... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is nothing new. (Score:5, Interesting)
You are found to be sending out copyrighted material over P2P networks, we get the complaint, and turn your service off. You call in, we tell you you were distributing the copyrighted gaybarebackporndivx.avi - and you promise to disable your outgoing filesharing.
We turn you back on, close the ticket, and all is back to normal.
Bittorrent? (Score:5, Informative)
Just use the Jake Excuses (Score:5, Funny)
- 'Joliet' Jake Blues, The Blues Brothers
Downloading huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Downloading huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
The "Service" (Score:3, Interesting)
"In accordance with the DMCA and Comcast's Acceptable Use Policy, Comcast request that you immediately remove the allegedly infringing works from the Service or Comcast will be forced to remove or block access the the works."
Comcast is demanding the file be removed from (The "Service"). I use Comcast and when did my personal Hard Drive contents become under the control of their Acceptable Use Policy?
If the file was placed on rented Web space on one of their servers, maybe... But to demand I remove a file off my personal hard drive because it is in violation of their Acceptable Use?
This seems to me to be a line crossed. If they've now declared that the contents of my personal hard drive are covered under their "Service" then I say Bring it on! That's a fight I'd morgage the house to pay for!
I'm going to install BitTorrent just so I can get one of these letters. I'm mad.
How and who watches downloads? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How and who watches downloads? (Score:3, Interesting)
More than likely it was someone MGM hired. Tracking bittorrent downloaders is pathetically easy. You can get the IP of everyone on the torrent, how much they're uploading, etc. They give the IPs to MGM's lawyers, who inform the ISP. The ISP isn't accusing anyone, it's MGM.
Very Happy (Score:3, Interesting)
IANAL, but there are laws about theft of service from cable companies. These were passed to prevent people from sharing their cable TV with their neighbours, but apply to their Internet service as well. Saying that you have an access point would be admitting to committing theft of service.
Anonymous Store and Forward over Wireless, anyone? (Score:3, Interesting)
DMCA (Score:3, Interesting)
While I can see allegations of copyright infringement, if the user was in fact sharing a copyrighted movie, I'm a bit confused by the DMCA aspect. No encryption was being circumvented (it was a camera rip), nor was the copy made from a digital source of any kind, and it's not even clear that the user is the one who made originally made the rip of the movie, so I would think standard copyright law would cover the situation - it was a copyrighted movie, he was allegedly distributing it. What provision of the DMCA was supposedly being violated here?
SpeakEasy shut me down on Microsoft's request (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, all Microsoft requested, was for them to inform me, offering a file named Windows_Source.zip was likely illegal -- by forwarding the Microsoft's letter to me.
But SpeakEasy.net -- the celebrated "geek friendly" (you can run servers) ISP -- shut me down -- without even checking, if MS' allegations were true (I removed the file the day before MS sent their letter to SpeakEasy)!
Trouble was, I was on vacation, so it lasted for a week... They gave me credit for the whole week after I cleared it upon coming back, but I am still fuming.
ISPs! Toss your logs! (Score:5, Interesting)
What I don't understand is why ISPs don't just toss the logs every 24-48 hours - they are sending out the letters to comply with the Safe Harbor provisions of the DMCA. If they deleted the logs as policy, they would be compliant with the provisions, and wouldn't be *able* to send out letters. IANACopyrightLawyer.
Another thing - There is no 'open' advice on EFF or Chilling Effects as to what to do when you get a letter. In my case, the file may have been something I shared, but I truly don't recall having the file listed at the stated filesize.
It would be nice to know what the hell to do, as sending a letter of any sort seems to open yourself up to a suit (which as we all know, I will win, because of resonable doubt and the fact that the justice system is fair and not based entirely on who has more money.)
ugh.
Dear Comcast (Score:5, Informative)
Signed
Comcast user
Lets be realistic here. There is NO mention of Comcast giving out ANY user information. I assume MGM contacted Comcast with a list of IP addresses, Comcast is tackling this from their own end. Big picture though... How is anyone realsitically supposed to know what is indside a file before downloading it? Is a file name and an IP address enough evidecse to assume you were knowingly contributing to copyright infringment? What if you got an email saying "New Microsoft Updates" and it happens to point to http://somesite.inv/xfiles.torrent (remember, many popular email clients do not directly show you the link and render html).
Torrents provide an easy way for anyone to see the participating members. Of course the media companies have no easy way to see if you got the whole thing, 10kb of it or have been redistributing it at 100kB/sec for 10 days.
Usenet seems to be more protected for the downloaders as the only place logs are kept are with the individual news server owners. Any attempt at a media company getting the download logs would be truely a fishing expedition. The point of all these questionable methods being used by the media companies is to scare people and do it with the cheapest and easiest method. If it really did come down to a court case involving money and damages, they would need more evidence then an IP address and possibly a filename to get money and prove a point. Detailed logs of your file transfers and possibly even packet captures, exact timestamps, the file in its entirety as transfered from YOUR computer only (you could have been pushing out bogus data etc) and probably much more. All of this is already possible with the cooperation of ISP's but the bang for the buck is not good. They want to protect their rights in a civil court but want it done cheaply with no effort involved. The result is campaign contributions, FUD, and cheesy attempts at laws. The DMCA and the one proposed allowing them to "hack" into your computer stand out the most.
This story is very misleading.... (Score:5, Informative)
Second, it does not say you must submit an explanation and apology. You only have to submit something to them if you believe that the file was mistakenly identified.
The only thing this is asking you to do is stop sharing the file. Which is what I did. Comcast is not trying to invade your privacy. And they are most definitely not doing this because they want to, it's because the copyright owner has used the DMCA to force Comcast to notify you of your infringement.
I really wish the editors would look into the details of things like this before submitting a story. It's almost as if they want to post misleading information to make controversy amongst us users and start a heated debate.
Re:Did you expect anything different (Score:3, Interesting)
They're probably playing establishing a track record to appease their next Hollywood acquisition target.
Re:Did you expect anything different (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmm, Will Comcast protect it's own shows? (Score:4, Interesting)