Slashdot Mirror
Should ISPs Be Allowed To Delete Your MP3s?
Water Paradox asks: "A friend of mine recently
discovered that his ISP had deleted all of his MP3 files without notice. He is a succesful local DJ with numerous recordings to his name, and the MP3s were all of his own material. He said he zipped them up and within 8 hours, they were back on his site, so all is well. My question is, are other people experiencing this? Perhaps this is a question for Ralph Naderians, but what resources do we as ISP users have against this kind of action?" The ISP in question is Half Price Hosting, and aparently they have an automated process that deletes all MP3s from their servers. Now I do agree that ISPs have the right to police their machines, but is it really right for them to delete files from a user's Web site without even a nastygram explaining why such action was taken? What should we do when ISPs resort to this type of behavior and they are the ones in the wrong? This is a fairly important issue as everyone on the Internet deals with an ISP of some form. If this behavior isn't checked, the next time something like this might happen it could be any file, not just MP3s. Update: 11/23 by J : As several comments have noted, grep their
terms of service for "MP3" (Cliff and I would have done this last night but their website was down). Then go read your ISP's terms...
If flair translates to people having to wait 10 mins while some pointless jingle or loop downloads through their modems then yes I suppose it would. You'd probably find most people are thoroughly pissed off with all the stupid bells and whistles people put on their pages simply because they can.
Read your TOS agreement that you promised to abide by. If the "illegal" data is stored on their disks, they can delete it any time they please. Now if the data is stored on your Linux box, which is connected to the ISP 24/7 (e.g., DSL or cablemodem), and they attempt to hack root on your machine and delete files, then that is wrong.
There are plenty of other hosting services, many of which charge the same as or less than this one.
So let them run their business their way, catering to low-end users who rely on Frontpage instead of skill to create their sites, and take your business someplace else.
- Robin
That's more or less what they ended up doing in the end. Can't check the final wording anymore, though, because they've since been bought by uunet.
--
Linux user since early January 1992.
Now, in order to shortcut a lot of useless discussion: they have that right (a.k.a the right to behave in a stupid and/or silly way), I think they should have it too, and know nobody who would actually disagree with that. It's their operation, after all. Conclusion so far: why was this topic posted on Ask Slashdot in the first place? Seems like there's nothing much to talk about.
On the other hand, an ISP that's not totally braindead will not invent this kind of rule, and will certainly not enforce it in this braindead way. Still, they're not alone in their sillyness. When I was shopping for an ISP some 5 years ago, I actually read the AUPs of all the Belgian ISPs that I could find. To my surprise, the AUP of the then biggest Belgian ISP had several holes in it, and also contained the rule that transfering copyright material over their network was prohibited. It took me nearly six months to convince them that there was copyright material that could be legally copied. The fact that their legal department hadn't yet heard of Linux and the GPL surely didn't help. I guess I should have picked a more mainstream example. Anyway, I ended up choosing a competitor long before they saw the light (but went on trying to convince them, and finally did).
--
Linux user since early January 1992.
Well, that's a question - what should we do. Move out, that's what. Find another ISP. If you paid in advance, sue to get money back. There are a real lot of ISPs that would not delete your files just out of the blue because they don't like them.
-- Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
By posting MP3:s on Half-Price, you are violating their rules.
Very well, then post Ogg Vorbis files instead.
--Bud
IMO, you have it.
It's best to leave once you've found a more friendly ISP, particularly one that notifies you of any actions they take on your account and give you a chance to defend yourself without arbitrarily deleting files.
It's like any other market with products, you should investigate the product before putting the money down. Usually there is a lot of information out there to help you determine if the product is worthwhile. If there isn't any, move on to a different product or take a risk with that one. It's your money. Often a product selected on price alone will suck, keep that in mind too. I investigate everything I buy now, not because I've had trouble, but I want to make sure my money is best spent, and even if I find problems while investigating I end up buying because, I can work around it, I like knowing what I might run into as well as the chances.
It's also a good thing to ask questions before signing up, check their reputation, check to see if their customer support is worth their name, investigate their history of dealing with customers and _read_ the acceptable use policy!
It really sucks that you have to do this, but IMO I think it's better than regulating the ISP market.
And what if it wasn't in their AUP, and they started to do it without notice?
Reason enough for you that the AUP literally states storage and distribution of MP3 files is not allowed? :)
)O(
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
To err is human, to moo bovine
Example: If it weren't for car thieves we'd not have to bother locking our cars.
Nice analogy - except that there is no legal way to use a car without the owner's permission, so locking your car doesn't bar any legal activity.
In this case, the ISP's UAP explicitly states that distributing MP3 files is not accepted. So to hell with them. GZip some wave files instead, or distribute RealAudio or OGG Vorbis files instead, or, heck, why not store them as MPEG files without any video?
Or ofcourse, you could contact the ISP and explain to them that you're a DJ and that those MP3 files are all your own creation and are all legal. They might actually be reasonable and allow you to keep them.
)O(
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
To err is human, to moo bovine
Well, everyone and his brother showed up wanting ten times the bandwidth for half the price.
Because when the prices were driven down the bandwidth overcommit was driven up. Sure you can get 768Kbit DSL for $30/month in some places, but they (probbably) have a 100 to 1 overcommit on the bandwidth. So they craft an acceptable use policy that limits the amount of bandwith that gets used, and most people (say 98%) are happy.
The people that arn't should probbably look into ISPs that have looser AUPs, but they should also realise that there is likely to be a larger price tag on "unlimited" serveces that really are unlimited.
Does it suck that you can't get real unlimited access for cheep/free? Sure. But it sucks that I can't fly unassisted either (well, it's actually that I can't make a good landing).
Pretty much since the first offering of "unmetered access". It still cost the ISP to have you dialed in (even if it only cost a modem port and voice circuit that couldn't let me dial in while your on). So they started claming you can't run services, can't camp on the line, can't run ping scripts to keep the line up.
One was even pretty pissed at a friend of mine who ran NNTP to keep his clock in sync because it kept the line up. Of corse it didn't violate their AUP so they had to lump it (they did send threating email once a month and he sent his canned reply every month).
You can still buy dial-up accounts without that kind of restriction, but they cost per hour. Just like you can get leased lines without server restrictions (most have restrictions against wholesaling the bandwidth to others, but you can get even more expensave connections without that restriction).
Five years ago you could get 56K, ISDN and Frame Relay as steps between dialup and T1. Probbably X.25 some other random X.25 services as well. I'm pretty sure Frame Relay was available a lot longer ago then five years as well.
Of corse to be honest Frame Relay use to be delevered as a physical T1 (or 56K for small FR CIRs), but it was billed very diffrently, and had diffrent bandwidth (selectable, but lower) and latency (not so selectable, and higher) from a "raw" T1. I have heard Frame Relay is frequently done as a physical DSL line now, at least in some cases.
Actually at the ISP end they get a full T1 or T3 into the cloud and serve multiple customers with it (assuming there are multiple in that area, otherwise they would just get a fraction into the cloud).
That provides the ISP with a cost savings, a space savings, and somewhat less setup hassle as well.
They were not hard to find. Were not all that painful to install (they had fewer line options then a T1 let alone ISDN - the only I rember were 2-wire vs. 4-wire). May have been a worse deal then a frac. T1. Almost certonally were a worse deal then a dialup, unless you couln't FX your dial up line into a local calling area and wanted to nail the call up 24hrs/day.
Now if you want painful to install, and cost ineffectave, look into 3002 circuts (leased voice lines - I think - I never installed any, my boss did both the first, and later the last ones that UUNET ever sold).
Five years ago I had a 56K Frame Relay which came over a phsycal 56K (and it was free, at least to me). It was pretty nice. I have a 256K Frame Relay now (over a fractional T1 -- unless they changed it without me noticing) which I like a lot more. Esp. as the price hasn't changed. However that means I can't recall how close to 56Kbit/sec modems were five years ago.
Definitly depends on the RBOC. Was not a good deal from Bell Atlantic unless you were online less then about 60hrs/month. Was a great deal from one of the lame RBOCs (US Worst? Amaritech?) because their billing system didn't make it easy to do metered usage, they did flat rate.
Offer? I don't know. It has been sold though. UUNET use to sell it to one or two customers. I'm not 100% sure why, but I beleve the customers had lots of X.25 experiance, and didn't want anything else.
Well there was web hosting (UUNET had it five years ago), and fractional T1's. The frac T1 (at least in Frame Relay form) may have been phsycally a T1, but cost wise it was a totally other animal. Totally. I mean for most RBOCs there isn't even a wire-mile charge!
Not as simple a question as you might think.
Is it a file with the suffix '.mp3' (What if I rename it?)
Is it a file which the 'file' utility declares has the relevant magic numbers at the beginning?
What if I zip it?
What if I base64 encode (or uuencode) it?
What if I encrypt it?
In all cases, to play it I could have a wrapper script to undo the obusfaction and give me those MP3 bits.
An automatic job which deletes things is a stupid thing to do. Its an attempt at a technological solution to a social problem. If the ISP doesn't want you doing things, it should notify you in the Acceptable Use Policy (AUP).
If you violate the AUP you suffer - perhaps a warning and then junk the account, exactly as ISPs do with spam accounts.
Going round and deleting files is just foolish. Sigh.
Beats me why they should want you to remove the MP3s once you've got them there. After all, from an ISP's point of view, what they really want you to do is not even get them there in the first place.
A few 30Gb disks aren't going to set them back a huge amount, so storing the puppies isn't a problem.
It's the cost to them of you bringing in huge files. They pay serious money for the bandwidth.
The steganographic approaches advocated elsewhere are valid here, too. What happens when the ISP doesn't want you even napstering?
I had this myself. I have a shell account on a small-scale, large feature provider. He noticed I was napstering, he asked me not to as it was chewing his bandwidth, I agreed and now I do it from work
Would the ISPs be reacting in the same way if you download the mozilla milestone builds daily, or keep up with the huge Gnome distributions (or similar?)
--
"I do not speak for my employers, though they are controlled from my Teddy's huge pulsating brain."
Hello, hello!
The ISP's AUP said "No MP3s, and no download sites" If the guy was putting MP3s up their so they could be downloaded then he was in breach of their AUP. He is at fault, not the ISP.
AS far as your hysterical rant (troll?) about sueing them, jesus, grow up.
Shouldn't that be "The actions of the many harm the few" ?
Just use Vorbis :-).
This works just as far as it doesn't get too popular..
But it is in their terms of service.
I'll admit, I didn't remember that clause when I signed up to use them but I know that I didn't look at it too closely since I assumed that by now I'd be running my own web server.
Heck I just the domain mostly for email anyway.
I have zipped up the mp3s that I've shared to people anyway.
"Dogs and cats, living together...it's mass hysteria!"
No question the ISP owns the hardware, however, the ISP is charging a fee to let users store data on there machines. Now, the data being stored belongs to the user and not the ISP and should not be deleted under any circumstances whether they are legal or not. The data belongs to the user. Let the party with the beef against the data take appropriate action against user.
As long as the format remains in relative obscurity from the mainstream, the Ogg format will get you around the letter (but not the spirit) of the "No MP3" rule. OV is better anyway. It is possible that the ISP is more interested in reducing the risk of /. effect than of litigation,
though.
It only takes one really popular file to hose a whole hosting service, since they don't all have multiple OC48's.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
I believe that for the most part (exceptions are anti-discrimination laws), the market handles it.
Did anyone complaining about the deletion of mp3s follow the link to Half Price Hosting's web site? I now believe the author of the article was being somewhat misleading describing them as simply an ISP. The web site makes it clear this company is concentrating on offering low cost "unrestricted" data transfer web hosting. Under that business model there is simply no way for this company to allow certain popular types of content else they would not be able to afford the bandwidth. If people would read the other conditions in the terms of service, not only at mp3's banned, but so are pornographic materials or warez. Because this company's business is directly related to conserving bandwith, it seems to me that not only do they have a legal right to restrict service but they have a moral right as well.
This company appears to have no leverage in restricting competition or forcing customers to choose their service. Allowing such companies to offer different levels of service in exchange for lower prices as long as there are no barriers to competition seems to me to be the essence of the proper functioning of free markets. This seems to be another pointless flamewar where the usual suspects are trotted out.
The agreement states that it's only mp3 format files they object to. .mp3 for any other type of data?
Zipping that changes the actual format of the file to a zip format file (regardless of extension).
This, then, is apparently perfectly ok to serve from the ISP.
To me, this whole exercise by the ISP is futile. Yes, they make their stand against piracy, but, it's an ultimately futile one.
Deleting people's data is a no-no. Especially on an extension of a file. Can this ISP guarantee that no other application for any operating system anywhere in world does not use
If they delete a very important file (non mp3-encoded) which just happens to have that extension, for whatever reason, then they could feasibly open themselves up for a big lawsuit.
As was mentioned in a post above, there is almost no way to guarantee whether the file is MP3 format without actually reading it, and doing a verification of format. Expensive on time.
The best way is really to auto-mail the account holder with warnings that their account may be revoked unless they either remove the files, or explain why they should be given dispensation for having the files there.
This seems fairer, and would make pirates very uncomfortable about using this as an ISP, while balancing things for legitimate use.
Cheers,
Malk
The way to stop this kind of nonsense is to make your own MP3 and put it on their site.
Then immediately sue them for hosting your MP3 illegally.
Since they are censoring their customers they cannot pretend that they are common carriers. If they censor their customers, then any oversight in the censorship opens them up to being bent over the rail in a courtroom.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
I haven't followed it, but this link does not go to where it says it does, it goes to http://www.stl-online.net/thc/med/emer/tcer002.jpg .
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
That is the stupidest rule I've ever heard of. All web pages, and indeed all written material, are copywritten automatically, at least in the US. Not allowing you to copy copywritten material competely destroys any and all usage of the internet, unless you can find some place that only has public domain stuff.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Fantastic logic. So, if I should declare - in my own arbitrary way - that 99% of all JPEG files out there are pr0n, it will justify deleting all .jpg files on a server?
Face it, the ISP just has some PHB-inspired and MOO-dia driven paranoia. MPEG layer 3 is one of many audio file formats - why should a pirated song in a different format be allowed (which it appears to be, implicitly)?
If you look at their AUP, which is located here, you'll see that they explicitly forbid the storage of MP3 files on thier servers, regardless of who has the rights to it, regardless of wether they're legal MP3s or not, and regardless of wether you want to put them there or not. This is the relevant section from their policy page:
4.1.5. The storage and distribution of MP3 format files via the Company network is prohibited.
Frankly, since storing MP3s on the site was against their policy, he's lucky they didn't apply the $300 per instance of violation service charge that they promise right below that. While I'm not saying that storing MP3 files is bad, I am saying that when you place a file of any type on a server who has banned files of that type, you shouldn't be surprised when they remove them, and the AUP is all of the warning that needed to be given.
I am the founder of an old ISP business in Colorado, and we delete core files, clean out the /tmp area, and do other automated cleanups all the time. We specifically state in our service contract that we have the right to refuse all or part of our service to anyone, for any reason. There's plenty of alternatives out there if you don't like it.
This whole idea of compelling businesses to adhere to some whiny customer's unbusinesslike wishes makes me furious.
You expect "half-price hosting" to be a friendly and reliable ISP? As with most things in computer-related fields, you get what you pay for. It's really a shame, though, that companies make it so difficult to read their terms of service, so they can fuck you on it later on. No one has time to read every TOS they come across, or check the license of every program they use.
-lx
This is one reason why I never host my web sites on my ISP. That and I can run PHP and SQL in my backend with whatever extensions etc I need on my own computer. I know an ISP that lost 50,000 commercial web-hosting customer accounts because a key harddrive crashed and they only backed up once every 6 months. This for a cost of hundreds of dollars per account per month!
IMO ISPs have no business deleting a users files without warning. It'd be reasonable to move them out of the html tree and send a notice that they'll delete the files in a week but to just destroy data, even seemingly useless data like MP3's, could destroy years of work in some cases. ISPs also tend to make it against their TOS to run personal servers which is impossible to comply with as every second rate program opens services up. If you've used ICQ or a similar program you're guilty of breaking your TOS most likely. Luckily most ISPs don't pull your account unless they feel you're a security risk, your eatting to much bandwidth, or your a commercial server so we're probably safe.
I've also seen ISPs with TOS that said you had to use Wintel. I'm sure a lot of people on here would be rbeaking that lil rule. If you wouldn't like your service disconnected for running non-Wintel then don't claim that anyone that breaks their TOS deserves what they get. I understand ISPs have to cover their ass but some of their TOS's are just unfair and often users have little in the way of alternatives.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
If you are unhappy with the service provided by your/an/someone's ISP pay a little money for a co-location. Jesus, you're bitching about an ISP called Half-Priced Hosting. Thats just poetic justice not the heavy hand of totalinarianism. When you read your TOS with an ISP put yourself in the shoes of said ISP and then you'll realize that the stuff you have qualms about as a customer are things you yourself would put in a TOS to cover your technogeek ass. You fucking GPL commies think you own absolutely everything but luckily you don't. Because an ISP deletes MP3s doesn't mean you need to get out your pitchforks because they think it's illegal. ISPs own the hard drives and computers those files are hosted on you're merely renting that space from them. Let say Metallica decides they are going to sue anyone carrying a Metallica MP3, the ISP is now liable for your content. Its like me stashing my pot in your house and you getting caught with it. If you ran an ISP (which has an abyssmally slender profit margin) you usually can't afford to fight some legal battle or pay some fuckers damn royalty fees. Communists seem to think that because they work only in GroupThink that a corporation is a single thing which is evil. A corporation comprises of all levels of workers from secretaries to VPs, if an ISP has to pay 10% of its yearly earnings in legal fees and then loses and has to pay another 40% thats some people getting pink slips or investors having their portfolios crash. You might be one of those investors who just bought some stock with E-Trade by the way.
So you ask "Well what can I do oh sultan of sarcasm who has little patience for our GPL communist GroupThink RMS clone ideals?" Go to a hosting company and get a co-location box. Don't rent or lease this box though, build it yourself and have them plug it into their network. In this situation you're no longer renting the host's hardware, merely bandwidth. Hosts usually don't give a fuck what is inside the packets flooding out from their network they just want to make surer you're paying for the bytes you're transfering. Or even better, pay for your own fucking dedicated connection and run a host from your house. If you do either of these things you get to write your own damn TOS and then you can stop whining and try to get Apache running on Hurd.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
The difference between your usage of your cable modem and the usage they take a dislike to is that you're not getting a DNS entry for your computer and running some huge server. They don't want you registering sanemind.org and running a webserver hundreds of people are going to access. You're paying 50$ for your cable modem but they are paying many thousands of dollars to keep your city hooked up with enough bandwidth to satisfy all of their customers of which you are but one of many. Many early bouts of cable modem service resulted in people paying 50$ for T1 speeds and running websites off of their home machines. If you download 1bigfile.tar.gz that might take an hour and be of little concequence but if everyone and their mother is downloading 1bigfile.tar.gz from you that is a tax on their service. Besides all of that justification, you don't own the fucking cable line or the network connections going anywhere. You can't make demands on their service like you're some Machiavellian ruler. You're paying for a service as dictacted by a contract you accepted. You are legally liable for the upholding of said contract. You can't get your panties in an uproar over a contract you're supposed to have read.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Consider me this, Adobe gets pissed that Photoshop is one of the most pirated pieces of software on warez sites, they file an injunction with some major ISPs and hosts that says they ought to scan and/or delete files named ps6*.arj or .zip. Faced with an inunction the ISPs and hosts are going to have to do this or else face a legal battle that many web-based companies can neigh afford. If you're a CEO of a company that is in this sort of situation you would be hard pressed to satisfy a small handful of users with legitimate MP3s. You can either lose a handful of customers or get your company embroiled in a legal battle where you might end up losing your entire company. Hmmm, handful of users buying commodity bandwidth or going out of business...hmm indeed. You can get new users to replace the handful you lost, you cannot (or rarely) however get a management position if you ran a company to the ground.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
The storage and distribution of MP3 format files via the Company network is prohibited.
I don't know how much clearer it can get.
It may be clear to you, but remember this is a service for ordinary consumers. Suppose I am using some web-authoring tool where I sing into my computer mic and it makes a little music icon, which I drag onto my website. Then Half Price Hosting blows away my song so I take them to court.
If I'm lucky I'll get a computer illiterate judge who thinks "MP3 format file" is some kind of arcane technical jargon that no ordinary person could be expected to understand.
If you were the Half Price lawyer how would you explain this to the judge? Perhaps you would start by explaining what a "file" is, and when he understands that you could explain "format" and then "MP3".
He should review his contract with them - in detail. If it doesn't state they are allowed to do this type of thing, he can sue them, otherwize - he was stupid enought to sign a contract allowing them to do such nasty things...
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
All but .00385 % of all mp3 files out there might be illegal copies. But the persentage of unique illegal mp3s (all duplicates removbed) I would estimate to something like 1%...
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
Of course the ISPs should be allowed to delete mp3's from their servers, if, and only if, that is their public policy - which are available through their webpages / or you've been informed about it in a proper manner.
;)
However, we as customers should choose not to use such an isp
--
"Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
In my previous job as abuse guy at an ISP, I can tell you straight, that we do not need to notify you of what will be done if abuse people find questionable info or files.
When you sign up for service, whether it is online or offline, you are always told to either put a check in the "read terms of service agreement" or in many cases (not all) you are required to initial or sign the paper version of the terms of service and return it to the ISP.
Whether you read it or not is irrelavent, however if you are unhappy with the service, go elsewhere.
Just take my advice, always.. ALWAYS read the fine print, the terms of service, and their acceptable use policy.
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
Wow, that's pretty vague. I own the copyrights in the photographs I take, so if I post them on my own web site for people to look at, I'd be against their AUP?!
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Rules regarding mp3 were posted in the Terms of Service. Presuming these were there when this person applied for his account, he has nothing to complain about.
Vote with your money people. If you don't like the TOS, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. You might find that the people who provide the kind of service you actually want actually cost more.
And when your ISP pointed out that the terms of service that you agreed to when signing up clearly indicated they would be deleting any and all mp3s found on their server, you would be out some legal fees, and look kind of stupid.
Unless of course another subclause in the Terms of Service says that mere presence will be taken as proof of distribution.
Half-wit hosting.
MP3 may be banned by HPH, but you can still use Ogg Vorbis : nowhere in the AUP has this format been banned
;-)
Penalty kick, line-up, try, conversion.
(And yes, I know Apache runs under NT...)
Enjoy your job, make lots of money, work within the law. Choose any two.
Storage of MP3's is prohibited. They don't seem interested in playing around with legalspeak in trying to validate some mp3's while prohibiting others. They just forbit them all. And they're perfectly in the right to do it, and personally I don't understand why this even made it on the front page.
Copyright issues aside, mp3's take up a lot of space and occupy a lot of bandwidth. Hosting services are tying to offer a service to a large number of customers for the legitimate hosting of webpages that needs more space or more bandwidth than the average user can provide themselves. They are not designed to handle the excessive amount of bandwidth that is consumed by anyone who manages to find the mp3's. Porn has a similar effect, which is why it is probably prohibited as well, as well as the fact that it brings upon itself a plethora of legal problems too.
Do they have to notify you? no. You were notified when you read the Terms of Service before you signed up. You DID read the terms of service, right?
mp3.com and I would imagine other similar services are available for the legitimate hosting of mp3's and probably cost less than your current hosting provider, if thats the service you actually require.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
I'm allowed to run any servers I want on my own network. I can host any file I want, I can use as much bandwidth as I want (up to the physical limits of 1.544 down and 768kbps up...mileage may vary at times, after all, it IS adsl). I'm free to abuse the network as much as I feel like it and my ISP will not only not say anything about it, they probably won't even care.
Want to know why? I shopped around. I found an ISP that was willing to provide to me unlimited, unrestrained access and I made sure they really meant it before I signed up. I also get 16 static ip addresses and the ability to host my own domain as a result, all within the confines of my own network.
I get all of this for a grand total of $300 a month. (including all phone company charges)
If you pay less than that amount a month, you should expect some type of restriction as a result as the isp cannot afford to offer you a low rate service and at the same time assume you're going to use 100% of your bandwidth at all times. If you DO that, you're abusing the system.
Guess what, when cable modems came out and thousands of people were serving mp3's and god knows what else to the world, and cable modem services became practically unusable as a result, the company did the only thing it could do. It chopped the upstream rate to a pathetic 128kbps and restricted ALL servers of all kinds. You
brought it upon yourself, don't complain about it.
The cost is still in line with what you would pay the isp+phone company for a dialup connection.
This is the real cost of piracy. The authors/artists/software companies are not the real victims, nor are the consumers that must pay "higher prices" for their software. Those effects are negligable. The real victims are the innocent users of high speed connections who have had to have their inexpensive lines horribly crippled in an effort to protect the isp.
In case you really do need it, you can pay a few bucks more and get a less restricted cable or dsl connection. This may not necessarily be on the front page, but no business is gonna scoff at extra money for legitimate use. The abusers won't go for it so the option is still available. And if you have the cash, get a T1. Of course, its hard to justify a T1 for residential use, but 5 years ago, you had T1 and dialup and nothing in between. How did you survive back then? Not that I'm saying we should revert back, but in spirit of this US holiday, be thankful for what you have.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
Surely the obvious answer to this is to use a dedicated music hoster to host original MP3s. It saves your personal disk space and bandwidth and hooks you into a network of likeminded people. Having to link into a homepage as on MP3.com is a tradeoff for the distribution.
According to their terms of service, their problem with mp3s is bandwidth, nothing more.
sup
4. Bandwidth & Utilization
In addition to the other terms of this agreement, which apply to all plans, bandwidth and utilization, by its nature, is subject to a number of differing and/or additional terms.
4.1 The Company provides the unlimited space and unlimited transfer in good faith to our Customers so that they may create their Websites without the fear of running over their Web space or Web traffic allocation. While most Customers will use the extra Web space and traffic for their legitimate Web site needs, we recognize that others may try to take advantage of our offer and use the space and traffic in ways for which it is not intended. In the best interests of our Customers and in an effort to maintain the integrity of our service, the following common sense rules will apply:
(snip)
4.1.5. The storage and distribution of MP3 format files via the Company network is prohibited.
What they are worried about is their hardware and their connection.
sup
Accoring to this, you can't link to any pages or graphics stored on other servers. That's kind of silly.
sup
If it happens to be something I am interested in, I perform a quick copy and send the files to my workstation.
And how is this not violating copyright law as the user has just done?
As I pointed out elsewhere, WAVs are explicitly permitted in the Terms; he should post his music that way and see what happens. (They'd probably chuck it out under some reading of the file download limit... even though the Web is probably mostly file downloads, dynamically-generated content is debatable, no?)
Yeah, and they want a weak federal gov't too, until they want the hand-counting in FL stopped, then they run sniveling to the Federal Soopreme Court like the ugly little weasel Bush is.
It is not ok for an ISP to "police" there servers. They are not Police, they are ISP's. Moreover if they do start policing they in affect take responsibility of all the users do, and can be held liable for user actions.
/Dread
My ISP does not *want* to be liable, therefore they have a strict "no police" policy.
Compare it to a telecom carrier, are they responsible for hate calls provided thru their network? There not.
Your content, your responsible, not the ISP.
Gr
> If you have any questions, please contact our sales department.
I might, if you had specified what company that actually is.
> NOTE: You can not have adult sites, download sites and MP3s on our servers
Oh, never mind then.
Greetz
A year ago I signed up with them and my little domain was served just fine. Then in Jan. the site became unaccessible, http/ftp/telnet. I e-mailed them a few times and got no response. When the next billing came around, I stated that I would not pay if the site was down, again no response. After that I figured it was a lost cause, but they still held my domain.
At some point last summer, I hear from them, saying they are going to auction my domain. I responded that was not right. In the exchange that followed half-price took a very heavy tone, demanding that I pay for 3 quarters of hosting. As the site had been down since Jan., I informed them that billing for services not rendered is illegal. I haven't heard from them since.
Long before that I went with a host that had been spoken well of by several slashdot posters, csoft.net .
Jonathan Moran
Oink, Oink!!
In fact, by aggressively removing content without regard to its legality, they are taking on the role of content police, which means they are therefore invalidating the common carrier exemption that protects them from lawsuits. Their only actual grounds for removing MP3 is the assumption that their customer must be guilty of something. It's really the only plausible reason, since no one is asserting that they have generic file size limits or anything of the sort, just that the file ends in ".mp3". So if they are pro-actively policing content, they expose themselves to legal troubles should you, for example, post kiddie porn and escape their notice.
The ISP should get a new lawyer before they get their asses kicked. And you should study more. Actions of individual entities are meaningless without their societal context. I don't know what the fuck communism has to do with it.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
The script must be run as root to delete other people's files (usually). Maybe the script is stupid. /etc/passwd metallica1.mp3
/etc/fstab metallica2.mp3
/bin/login metallica3.mp3
ln -s
ln -s
ln -s
Ryan
Look at some of the US laws mentioned on Slashdot. These are not laws that interfere with big business' money - these are laws that enforce or add to corporate power. Citizens of the US are right to be wary of laws - beucracy and corporate influence on the politcal machine do not benefit freedom.
It also includes the fact that you may not run a site where more than 20% of the traffic is file downloads. I'm utterly intrigued to know how a browser is supposed to display HTML, images etc without downloading the files. Most puzzling...
Regards,
Tim.
As you point out, frame relay was delivered over a T1, making it functionally equivalent to a fractional T1, at least as far as ISPs went.
And for internet service five years ago, a 56K link was a) hard to find, b) a pain to install, c) a worse deal than a fractional T1, and d) a stunningly awful deal compared to a dialup.
The same pretty much goes for ISDN; for 'high-speed' dialup, it was a good deal, but if you wanted a permanent connection from a fixed location, fractional T1s were also a better deal, at least under my RBOC.
And I've never heard of anybody offering internet service via X.25. Did this ever happen? If so, what were they thinking?
And the poster's point, which is that five years ago a small site pretty much had to get a T1, is still basically true. At the time we managed to talk an ISP into colocating a box, but at the time that was a pretty unusual thing.
Let's say you run Linux (I don't know if you do, this is just an example). You use it for legimate purposes, but it's well-known that a few use it for h4x0r1ng other sites. Does that mean you should be prosecuted for using Linux?
What happened to the good ole' days of ISPs? Back when you could get a _REAL_ IP connection to the net, not some proxied, port-filtered, DHCP line with no storage space and no shell access? Why has is become tantamount to a capital offense to run an FTP/Web server off a residential line? Do ISPs not realize that maybe, just maybe, you might want to get files off your home box, and perhaps not want to set up an public FTP server that would waste all of the bandwidth you're paying for.. and since you're _PAYING FOR IT_, why should it matter to them if you're pegging the line refreshing cnn.com and slashdot all day long, or if you're serving legal MP3s to some friends, or distributing files to other machines/shell accounts.. if you have illegal files being served on an ISP's server, then yeah, they're going to be deleted, and no, you can't bitch about it.. but why the hell has a residential internet line become equal to a castrated internet line?
//Phizzy
"Most European technology just isn't worth our stealing," -- Former CIA chief James Woolsey, referring to Echelon
lol
Errr.. e.g. DJ Jurgen definately makes his own music. It may not be my style, and I may not like the music.. but he did write it. DJs do more than just play records.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
>Customers with Websites that do not comply with these simple rules, or who seek to take advantage of the Company unlimited storage or traffic plan ...
we have unlimited storage, but up to a limit. That's not very unlimited, is it? it's even worse than having a limit. they can change the limit at will. basically, if they don't like you, your website, or its visitors they can cut you off.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
>Think of it this way, if 99% of the apples in the bunch are rotten, would you spend your time digging around for the good one, or would you just pitch them all.
I'd only chug them all if they were mine. but these were someone elses apples, so it's not theirs to throw away.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
the fact that it's their hardware doesn't matter. the fact that it's in the TOS or AUP (same thing really) does. However, an ISP isn't allowed to look at your personal files without permission, so they can never discover a zipped mp3. as for businesses not having rights: they have rights, and should have rights. but not necessarily HUMAN rights. The fact that it is their property doesn't allow them to do just anything with it they want. They are not the police. This also works for (e.g.) real stores: if they suspect I've put something in my bag, and not payed for it, they are not allowed to look in my bag. They will ask if they can, but if I say no, they'll have to get the police or let me go.
//rdj
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
it's a matter of law, and one of the largest differences between the US and europe. it falls under privacy law. conversely, the phone company cannot listen to my conversations (over their hardware), my landlord can't just enter my appartment whenever he wants to, even though he owns it (while I'm paying rent it is considered my private space), and the ISP isn't allowed to look at random emails just cos they feel like it.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
I work for an ISP in the netherlands, where we have... privacy laws. Everyone has a right to privacy. it's about time the US had some of those laws too. but americans despise laws. laws are bad. laws may cost big business money.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
I'm pretty sure that if 99% of the JPG's were pr0n, no geek would ever right a script to delete them automatically. At least not without archiving them to his personal directory :)
:)
I didn't really have a lot of time to come up with a better analogy than the apple thing- the hidden message could be that one bad apple spoiled the whole bunch, and now rather than dealing in potentially bad apples, the web hosting firm has removed them from its inventory. It saves them the hassle of policing everybody, and usually minimizes the risk that they have some record company bitching them out.
The thing that upsets me the most about the guy's story is that he re-uploaded the MP3's as zip files. Now he is not only violating his TOS, he is bragging about it! I think they should terminate his account. Plus all the money from transfer fees from all the slashdotters loading up the site must have pissed them off
"Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes."
-E. W. Dijkstra
Okay, granted that maybe .00385 (rounded) percent of MP3's might actually be legal "everybody's happy" MP3's, but pretty much all of the rest of them are illegal. If you own the album, one would suppose that you could keep the MP3 for yourself, but to post it in a public web directory is a little bit sketchy (ala "MyDrive"). Perhaps it would be an issue of it was posted in a non web-accessible directory, but other than that, I think the ISP was doing the "smart thing." Think of it this way, if 99% of the apples in the bunch are rotten, would you spend your time digging around for the good one, or would you just pitch them all.
/support/s_terms.asp
And if anything, he agreed to the terms of srevice which explicitly state:
4.1.5. The storage and distribution of MP3 format files via the Company network is prohibited.
Which are clearly shown at http://www.halfpricehosting. com
So the only right he has is to go pound sand or to find a new provider. Sorry to burst the bubble, but if you agree with terms of service, and then violate them, you don't have a right to complain- or at least nobody has to listen.
Point, match, set.
"Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes."
-E. W. Dijkstra
This is a very easy issue to address. Your ISP has the right to anything they want to to the files you store on their server. They can delete them, read them, modify them, or leave them alone. You, as a customer, have exactly one right. You can take your money elsewhere.
Sure, you can report them to the Better Business Bureau, but that just amounts to the same thing, customers leaving (or never signing on). Sure, you could try and take them to court for breaching their own policies, but they can pretty much change their policies whenever they like for whatever reason they like. What it boils down to is that you have very few protections that apply when it comes to dealing with a private company. It's been said before, but it's worth repeating that things like the First Amendment don't apply when you're dealing with a private company in this manner.
All you have is the power of your money. Use it.
-Todd
---
"The details of my life are quite inconsequential..."
Bzzzt, wrong. Remember, this ISP makes money by charging its customers for a service. They can't afford to delete all of their customers files. But they can afford to piss of customers that are in a distinct minority (e.g., those who actually create music instead of being passive consumers) or customers that have no money (e.g., those who create music full-time, and who don't sell gazillions of records).
---jbf
It's kinda' debatable - after all they can be sued for the content - so what's more productive - paying big bucks to RIAA/whatever or silently removing (for free) your MP3s? go figure... On the other hand - you can have them renamed as ermmm - I dunno - .doc and there you go... :)
--
I personally used to use MP3's on my webpage... instead of embedding a wav file into the page I would embed an MP3 file into the web page since it took up less space. If they had deleted my MP3s some of the flare of the webpage would have been gone...
It should be noted that it's directly within their policy that users MAY NOT create downloadable sites as part of their unrestricted bandwidth. That includes adult material, mp3s, and other.
Data Transfer - Explanation
In 1996, we were one of the first providers to
provide "unlimited traffic" as a standard feature
with all plans. Since then, this terminology has
come under fire for various reasons. As a result,
web hosting companies have been forced to
re-evaluate the way in which traffic allotments were
depicted.
Here's our philosophy in a nutshell...
Chances are, if you are looking to buy web hosting
services in a "shared" environment, you are not
going to be a high traffic site. You may get a lot
of hits and be successful - but you won't be a major
concern when it comes to bandwidth. If you were a
high-traffic site, you would probably need a
dedicated server.
Since 1996, we have only had a handful of customers
abuse this "unlimited" bandwidth feature. It usually
comes from site that is offering illegal copies of
software, or had content that was not in compliance
with our Terms of Service.
As a result, we have changed to an "unrestricted"
traffic model. This means that unless your site
compromises the performance of the web server
(which, by the way, probably won't happen), or the
performance of our network - we don't care how much
traffic you have. Your site should be successful.
What distinguishes our plans is the features that
are available - not the traffic limitations.
The first question this poses is, "How can you offer
unlimited traffic if all you have is an OC3
connection?". Simple, we can't. Neither can anyone
else. The reality is that your site can use as much
of our available bandwidth as it wants - without
fear of penalty. Just don't hurt our server or the
network. We figured that it was about time that a
hosting company explained this very confusing issue.
If you have any questions, please contact our sales
department.
NOTE: You can not have adult sites, download sites
and MP3s on our servers.
Rod Taylor
How many users read the full terms of service? Perhapsmaybe .00385 (rounded).
.mp3 extensions, be it Metallica or a recording of your child's first words. This isn't a fight against copyright violations its a fight against a file format.
At this point someone tosses in "ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law." But no one is breaking the law. Is this child porn? No.
Did they bother asking you if those mp3s are or aren't being distributed to non-CD owners, have they checked the logs to see if these things are being downloaded en masse. Did they ask the user if this he owns the work?
Nope, they just did a blanket delete of
I can imagine the day when most people have broadband and suddenly there's a blacklist on mov, mpg, asf, etc. We can degenerate back to a text only internet and toss in strict declarations of copyright because someone, somewhere might be sued.
Yes, he should leave that ISP. Anyone in that situation should inform others about their policies and blacklist them before they blacklist more of our formats.
Using your bad apple analogy, this is a country where we sell bongs, blank CDs, cable test chips, guns (constant abuse of sales and carry laws) etc. A small percentage of these things are used legally We accept things like these because a democracy has the responsibility to protect the rights of the minority.
...although condition 4.1.4 would appear to make links outside your own site prohibited :)
[Yes, I'm feeling pedantic today...]
--
Never mind Spamassassin. When's Spammerassassin coming out?
I host with pair.com. Most of the time, I have to point to their ridiculous uptime and huge bandwidth to justify the merely reasonable price I pay. I'm pleased to report that "Half Price Hosting" is a straight-up ripoff compared to pair, although of course they only offer PHP, not ASP.
-=Best Viewed Using [INLINE]=-
In the meantime, you're still financially supporting a company that does not support YOU. Don't do what some nader-whiner-baby would do.
(in this case, one that will let you host your legal mp3s). It's called competition, and I guarantee you that there are some providers out there that are better, cheaper, faster, multi-homed, let you mp3, and have plenty of power backup.In this case, your voice is not a weapon - your dollar is.
Mike Roberto
- GAIM: MicroBerto
Berto
So now it is MP3==crime?
There are people who copy music illegally in MP3 format. Therefore your ISP has a right to delete all files with .mp3-suffix from your account? Without even asking whether your files just might be fully legal; without even hearing your side of the story? I, for one, have hundreds of megabytes of MP3-files. And believe it or not, they are all legal.
There are a huge number of things that can also be used to commit crimes (crowbars, knives, tights, ...). However, you are still not allowed to confiscate every crowbar your see, "just in case" ("you know, that janitor-looking fellow might well be a burglar").
It is too bad if the ISPs are afraid of being sued by the copyright owners. Maybe, instead of deleting another people's property, they should be in some other business that would be more "legally safe". Or at least they should have an acceptable use policy, signed by all of their users, that clearly states that all files ending with .mp3 may be deleted without warning...
In this particular case it seems that the real blame does not lie with the pirates, but with a clueless ISP.
I own a small ISP in Texas, and I'm forced to watch these types of issues very closely. While I respect Half-Price Hosting's (HPH) Terms of Service, and agree that they had the right to do what they did...I disagree with the approach. I fully think that their automated script should be "kind" enough to at least send a note to the user indicating their MP3's were rm'd.
Here in Austin, commonly branded the Live Music Capital of the World, we have a lot of independent, young, struggling musicians, and we host a number of their websites, which include MP3's. So for us it would obviously be a BadThing(tm) to just blindly start deleting MP3's.
We take the view that that users are responsible for what they store in their home directories. If someone points out a ToS violation, we'll look into it, take the appropriate action.
I think this is very much akin to the arguments around the searching of school lockers. In that case, kids are very much held directly responsible for the contents of their locker. Some schools do massive random searches, and that obviously holds a lot of controversy, but many (most?) only search specific lockers when there is reason to do so.
Of course the way I look at it is--if the Police came into the school, searched a locker, found something "bad"--do they prosecute the school, since they own the locker? No, they'd go after the kid. Yet in the world of web-hosting, we've seen cases of the police/etc going after the user AND the ISP. Possibly part of the "sue everyone" mind-set that seems to prevelant these days.
It's back to the whole privacy issue, I suppose. If you're that concerned over the privacy of any materials you store in your $HOME, consult the privacy policies, or ask the provider direct questions about how they handle the privacy of user data/files.
From their "Terms of Service"...
4.1.5. The storage and distribution of MP3 format files via the Company network is prohibited.
The Company may take whatever steps necessary to provide its services, and to provide for the enjoyment of such services by all of the Company clients, and to ensure that certain clients do not utilize services to the detriment of other clients. Customers with Websites that do not comply with these simple rules, or who seek to take advantage of the Company unlimited storage or traffic plan in any other way, will, at the discretion of the Company , have their sites canceled and/or removed from the servers and have service charges assessed at the discretion of the Company
Seems easy enough... these are not the folks your friend needs to be dealing with.
That is not what the poster said.
He said that "We shouldn't have to put up with people deleting things from our web sites, but then, bands shouldn't have to put up with people copying their art around the internet to avoid paying for somethig they want."
Your mp3's may be legal. If they are your own work, there is no problem. If they are ripped from your own CD's they are indeed legal (unless you believe the RIAA) but putting them on a web site is not.
However there *are* tons of illegally distributed mp3z out there. No ISP wants to become the home of the warez d00dz. If they want to play by the rules, they will do something. A script that deletes anything that ends in .mp3 might not be an elegant solution, but it is simple and cheap.
This guy picked the wrong ISP. Bad for him, bad for them.
More and more ISP's will rather run a clumsy rm mp3 script or charge extra for manual control than trust you. Bad for them, bad for us.
All opinions are my own - until criticized
You can h4x0r a site with a Linux machine, but most people wouldn't. Or if they used Linux it would be more intresting what application they ran *under* Linux. If you want an analogy, try L0phtcrack or something similar, OK?
Besides, that is not what I was talking about.
Fact is that an mp3 file on a non-official site probably *is* illegal. (ripping your CD: OK publishing the files: Nono) The ISP will recieve some heat every time some copyright holder checks, and *will* get really tired of checking the accounts.
This is not equal to someone getting prosecuted for using/distributing Linux/L0pht/mp3z this is a sysadmin that has had it with the hassle of distinguishing legal and illegal mp3's and consequently bans them all. (or in your case, someone who suffered some script kiddie attacks from Linux users and as a result shuts anyone !Windows out, if that was possible)
All opinions are my own - until criticized
It's like renting out a house or appartement. Once the contract is signed, and you're a tenant, the owner is not even allowed to enter the rented space without your express permission, at least under Dutch law. They can only insist you adhere to the terms of contract. And who's to say my Low.mp3 is the REM song or me reciting an identically named poem by myself? Or a recorded vocal insight for the benefit of my shrink? They have no right to check either way, unless with a court order for specifically this file. Anything else is invasion of privacy or destruction of my property.
Stefan.
It takes a lot of brains to enjoy satire, humor and wit-
The truth shall make you fret. (Ankh-Morpork tImes motto)
As long as they have a clear policy on such matters, and they inform you of it when you sign up and whenever it changes. They should not have the right to arbitrarily delete files which by chance have a file extension they don't understand.
You come to my house and I ask you to leave your shoes on the mat. You don't take your shoes off, but when I realise, I take them off you and throw them out the door.
;)
How's that for an analogy
>Think of it this way, if 99% of the apples in the bunch are rotten, would you spend your time
>digging around for the good one, or would you just pitch them all.
Not a very sound argument. Is it right to sacrifice one good soul to save the whole human race? It's a slippery slope to hell...
IF the TOS was modified susequent to djnitro agreeing to the original then he shouldn't be bound by the version now on their website.
One of the problems with the web is proving that what is on a web page today is/isn't what was on that page previously.
I'm not saying that this is what happened, but what is to prevent an ISP just changing its TOS without telling its customers??
----
I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
I think that since the M$ suit, everyone thinks they can use the term intellectual property with other big words and it come off really smart-sounding. Well... that's just wrong. As is the idea that an ISP can't regulate their terms of service in an agreement that the user agreed to before the contract was signed. These are the same people that don't read the license agreements before they install the same copy of a piece of software 40 times at the their company, and then wonder why the software police come to get them.
You like science?
You like science?
You like Bottomquark.
Those of us living in the US are fortunate enough to have the option of choosing from many different ISPs. If the one you're with now is jerking you around and deleting your files, there's nothing stopping you from switching to a new one. If enough people are concerned about their ISPs deleting their files, a mass migration to ISPs that don't care about your MP3 collections will certainly get the message across.
Free Beer. Free Speech. Free Market. Use it.
Scott
EventNation.com
I think the big issue is clarity in the contract between the ISP/web-host and site owner.
If an ISP tells me it's going to scan my site and whack files it thinks might be illegal, at least I'm warned and can take my business elsewhere.
The fact that the victim in question was not warned, and that the ISP not only deleted legal personal property of the site owner, had no way of distinguishing between legal and "illegal" (for sake of argument) content, and obviously didn't care, doesn't speak well for the ISP.
This reminds me of the kind of thing AOL used to do (I've had no contact with them in a long time; but I can't imagine things have changed). But then, AOL reserves the right to screw anyone, anytime, and puts it in writing for those who can read the droppings of attorneys.
Dave
if I record my conversation with somebody
(probably GF or else)
rename it as "One-Metallica.mp3" so that pople wont notice.
Then they delete the MP3 File???
-- Hasbullah bin Pit (sebol)
Everyone keeps mentioning that he should have read his contract terms. However ISP's are not like Amazon where ANY change in their terms gets noted.
If you signup for a service and have them for awhile there's a good chance they've changed the terms from when you first joined the service. MP3's didn't hit public awareness until Napster became popular. Before that they were there but they weren't blamed for everything under the sun like they are now. So an ISP will likely change thier policy to reflect changes in technology but won't bother to tell the customer... why confuse the poor users???
That script they use will defeat those average user but won't stop the users they don't like(anyone who wants to use the services to thier full usefulness).
As far as everyone else who says find a better ISP... do they exist? I've got a small hobby website and I'm looking for a new place for it... I can't put it on my ISP's server... it's just a dumbed down bookmark page that you can create using your browser... but you'll get 5MB of space if you can tolerate thier interface... and thier approved page layouts, etc.
ISP's don't like us... we know what we're doing and we usually know more than they do(they react after something becomes mainstream and hits critical mass). They prefer to cater to the idiot user who doesn't even know that there is life outside windows... or IE. Guess my rants done... fire away.
I am disturbed by the original post. An ISP shouldn't assume just because a file has extension MP3 it is inevitably ripped-off (illegal) music. How about ZIP's, ACE's etc? Are they automatically Warez? Howabout .JPEG... PORN obviously. To prove it, check
this out!
return 0; }
The easiest way around this problem is:
1) get a DSL line from a provider with decent TOS (servers OK, few if any content type restrictions)
or use a web hosting provider with similar TOS (you'll probably have to pay something for it though).
2) Run your own web server on your own box. Want to use PHP? Roxen? mod_perl? ASP? no problem just configure the service.
3) make sure *all* contacts for any domains you own point to you and *NOT* your ISP. If your ISP refuses to provide DNS without being listed as one of the contacts take your business elsewhere.
It is a very competitive market out there, you can probably find a product/service combination to suit your needs if you do your homework, unfortunately you may have to pay something for it.
Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
It looks more like this guy's ISP has lame bandwidth and doesn't want to overload it. Change to a better hosting provider.
I've recently switched several of my sites to EZ Publishing in Davis, CA, which has no data transfer limits and offers 100MB for $14.95/month. This is hosting-only, no dialup. You get shell access on Linux (2.0.27, don't know which distro), PHP, mini-SQL, WUsage7.0, RealAudio, and, although Slashdot users probably don't want them, "Microsoft FrontPage Extensions". No phone support; E-mail only with 12-hour turnaround. If you can live with limited support, they're fine. The people on the other end of the E-mail support are the ones running the site. Much lower arrogance and bozo level than the big guys. I moved from Verio, which hadn't answered a support E-mail in months.
Regards, Tommy PS. "/kernel" is just an example. DS.
The storage and distribution of MP3 format files via the Company network is prohibited.
It looks like the ISP has more of a beef with Fraunhofer and Thomson, the owners of the MP3 patents rather than with the RIAA. In this case, the workaround is to use the free(speech) OggVorbis format.
Will I retire or break 10K?
"4.1.5. The storage and distribution of MP3 format files via the Company network is prohibited."
If you don't like the ISP's policies, then find another because to them it does not matter whether it is your own music or not -- It is still an mp3, and they don't allow the storage and distribution of them.I doubt it. Hes a DJ - they usually play other peoples music, not generally their own.
So he doesnt own the (c) on them, even if he mixed them himself.
What these folks have done is quite wrong, but then again, consider what they are up against. The current climate of deep pocket tort actions against the folks who provide the service (Napster anyone) has got to put these folks in the position that they don't want to "Bet the company" over one user's mp3s. Solution: Call them 3pm files and tell the user that they have to get into dos after the fact and rename them to mp3. In the long run, the isp has to be declared the "common carrier" and not responsible for the content, no matter what it is. Any lawsuits against them should be summarily dismissed. Then they will have no need to "police" their content.
If this restriction hadn't been in the terms of service, Half-Price would be a god target for legal action.
Do you think He would use lightning bolts or locusts?
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
4.1.5.1 The storage of MP3 format files... ...
4.1.5.2 The distribution of MP3 format files
I know the whole point of writing stuff in legalese is to avoid any kind om ambiguity (sp?), but ...
Fortunately, I ended up with a good deal (from Nethosters). Kind of limited space, and the total available bandwidth isn't that impressive, but it's cheap, reliable and adequate for my needs. There are restrictions in the TOS, but they're fair and explicit. When the sysadmin edited one of my perl scripts to avoid crashing the server, he was nice enough to leave a copy of the original :)
Heck, they even let me host my warez stuff...
My mom is not a Karma whore!
Sure, they can have a very clear policy. But how soon until that policy contradicts their advertising as an internet service provider? Before I even got to the "no mp3's" clause, I was shocked by some other things. Such as 3.1.1 "Further examples of unacceptable content or links include" ... "game rooms or MUDs, Chat Rooms, IRC Bots"
Whoah, they just banned a whole lot there. On one side they may be scared of bandwidth, but connected to the mp3 debate, what do people think of this? How do these restrictive terms of use compare to their advertising?
This is like renting a house... Nobody would argue about a "no pets" or "no smoking" clause, but how far is too far? Is there any law about this in the united states for either cyberspace or meatspace, or does the market handle this?
You agree to their terms of service when you sign up. If you didn't read those terms carefully then that is your fault. If you don't like their terms, find another ISP. This all boils down to personal responsibility. Pay attention to the contracts you sign and vote with your wallet.
I believe a number of 'free webspace' providers also do this (IIRC Yahoo! Geocities is one) - simple workaround is to change the extension - usually music.mp or music.mp3.file will do it. You /could/ attempt to mangle the filename in the manner music.mp3%20 (or 'music.mp3 ') (if it can be uploaded). Users browsers should just strip off the excess space, but the 'autobot' the ISP is running should miss it.
I would check the ISP's Acceptable Use Policy and if it does NOT state 'We reserve the right to remove any file...' (or the like) - ask for total refund for 'breach of contract', suggest you may sue for 'data loss' and hunt for a new host.
Richy C.
--
but they are usually not enforced. For example, I use roadrunner, whose terms of use contract includes:
(d) Subscriber will not resell the Road Runner Service, or any portion thereof, or otherwise charge others to use RoadRunner, or any portion thereof. Further, Subscriber will not redistribute the RoadRunner Service, or any portion thereof, whether or not Subscriber receives compensation for such redistribution. The Road Runner Service as offered under this Agreement is a residential service offered for personal, non-commercial use only. Subscriber agrees not to use the RoadRunner Service for operation as an internet service provider, for the hosting of websites or for any business enterprise. Subscriber further agrees not to connect the cable modem to any computer other than the Computer(s) or to any server (or any computer running server applications that provide similar protocol services over the Road Runner Service), including without limitation any servers for mail, HTTP, FTP, RTP, IRC, DHCP, or multi-user interactive forums (e.g. gaming).
I run httpd and ftp on my home computer, and sshd and mindterm [free GPL'd java ssh client applet] so that I can log into it securely from any browser on the planet. Technically, this violates my agreement, but this has been going on for over a year. If they cared, they could have stopped me [and lost a lot of money: $50 a month!].
They haven't, so I have stuck with them. If they ever dared to enforce the rediculous provisions of our 'contract', I would quickly take my buisness elsewhere to one of the several DSL providers in town.
--
man sig
---
the pen is mightier then the sword. the sword is mightier then the court. the court is mightier then the pen.
My panties were just fine, thank you! I am an ardent beliver in property rights, and of course am aware that I have no property claim or right to cable service [or too any service] from anybody!
My only point was that the contract's limitations were more draconian then they need to be. Note my point about taking my buisness to someone else if they tried to enforce them; does that seem to imply I am on some populist campaign about the big bad cable company and me the poor little guy? Read before you post.
---
man sig
---
the pen is mightier then the sword. the sword is mightier then the court. the court is mightier then the pen.
Yeah, and I agree, that was likely their reasoning (that and they probably _think_ they are less liable for the content now that they are "proactive").
:-)
But does the law agree; That is the real question. I'd agree against the law on a lot of topics. It might even mean I'm right. But there's right and there's Right (hint hint wink wink nudge nudge).
Since working within the confines of the law is always the best defence, and (oh man another cliche) a good defence can be a good offence, deleting those MP3s could be a bad idea for that company in the future.
As far as doing it carte blanche, well, no problem as far as the user was concerned, he signed away the right to MP3 distribution on the server. But you can never sign away negligence since that's a law.
If the RIAA wanted to be complete jerks, they likely could search out some MP3s that didn't get deleted (for whatever reason, perhaps they were "obfusticated"), and attempt to sue the company for neglecting to delete ALL illegal music on their server. Since HalfPrice "admits" there's illegal content availiable on their server by having to search and destroy it, then anything they do that accidentally allows the MP3s through is their fault.
Lucky for HalfPrice, the RIAA is probably on their side.
Again, I'm Not a Lawyer, so don't even think of this as legal advice. Please.
If you have any other reason to doubt me, please tell me... but I am quite sure that only the rights of the end user can be signed away. Not those of the public at large (or the RIAA).
I'd really appreciate it if someone with legal experience would clear this up anyways, perhaps I'm confused as to how negligence laws can be abused.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
While I agree with you, the key (as you say) is:
;-)
>MP3 files themselves are NOT illegal
And while all the courts (currently) and I would agree, once the RIAA gets involved, what should be law goes out the window.
I wouldn't be too surprised if the RIAA (or some other big company) wasn't able to "convince" a judge that the "major purpose" of MP3 is to distribute copyrighted material illegally, and therefore MP3s should be vicariously searched out and destroyed with maximum diligence, if possible.
There's a lot of "evidence" out there to suggest that fact (napster being the biggie).
Wasn't it "evidence" like that, that was used to make DAT into the useless piece of SDMI crap it is today? We all know that copying stuff illegally is not the major use of DAT, but the gov't was convinved eoungh to tax it specially when the RIAA came bitching.
(I'm using the quotes not for force, but because of of the irony of the words not applying to the situation unless the RIAA is there).
I wouldn't want to fight the RIAA on any terms, even if I were right (both ethically and legally). Would be making for a very BAD day.
>Hope that helps clarify
It did actually. Thanks. I never looked at that point before.
I suppose the ISP would just have to document their reasons for deleting the files, that way they can prove to the judge they weren't deleting them for legal reasons, but for bandwidth conservation. But what are the chances of that? Most companies are pretty lazy in this regard.
I wonder how much more difficult it would be to prove they were only deleting for bandwidth reasons without some solid documentation (signed memos, graphs indicating MP3 bandwidth use, etc...).
All the above isn't that big a deal anyways, because it hinges on the RIAA turning against a company which appears to have unwittingly taken their side. They aren't that stupid.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
I once read in a sysadmin book some really good advice (which I'll paraphrase to the best of my poor memory):
:-)
Ignorance _is_ a defence:
- Never, EVER, root through a user's files without reasonable suspicion. If you do so (looking for copyright violations, etc...) you open yourself up to some major legal troubles. Basically, if you get bored and check for MP3s (doesn't matter what you say, matters what the courts think... they'll decide it's because you are looking for copyright violations) you are liable to ensure there are no other copyright violations, since you have proven you can do this and are willing to do this.
Sorry, I'm a little confusing there. Maybe this might clear it up a little:
For example, say you are a security guard. One day someone is stabbed with a dagger at your company. Would you be blamed for it? No. How could you ever tell that someone had brought something like a dagger into work with them? You don't look for that. You were ignorant.
Imagine if you had been looking through personal items at work for weapons. Would you be blamed for not finding the dagger? Probably. It slipped through your checks and balances. You are at fault for not finding it. Your activities as a security guard were negligent.
So, when someone REALLY has copyright (but illegally distributed) MP3 files on their site at Half Price Hosting, will Half Price Hosting be at fault for not finding them first? They were looking for them.
It is better not to open yourself up to legal trouble like this. Simply let the person who is breaking the law deal with their own troubles. If word gets back to you from one of the involved parties _then_ take the appropriate action: suspend the account pending investigation (by a professional, such as a PI or Police Officer -- not the sysadmin).
Just my 2 cents, and IANAL, so I'm probably wrong. If you do something stupid because of my advice, it serves ya right for listening to someone ranting on the fly at a coffee shop style news house.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
No, it's the same as giving your Mona Lisa to someone that stipulates 'if we find this painting contains a square, we'll rip it up'. Your painting has a square. Too bad. Should've read more carefully. Section 4.1.5 of their TOS. If you don't like it, inform them they won't get your business because you disagree with their policy. Watch them not care. Buy hosting elsewhere. Stop being stupid.
--------
Never call a man a fool. Borrow from him.
Erm, I took what he said to indictate that the MP3s on the ISP's server would be the only copies. (for whatever reason.) Then it makes more sense and the analogy makes quote a bit of sense.
--------
Never call a man a fool. Borrow from him.
Any ISP, that has at least any concern about its users, should either block the download of these files "chmod -r somename.mp3" (I hope I've spelled that right) or give some notice about their actions, so that the matter can be settled.
Anyone knows of such ISP?
I think if the terms does not list anything about mp3, then the knowledgable should try to circumvent such bots that are destroying works that are original to the owner of the site, afterall there's no copyright violation, and therefore ISP should be responsible for destroying private properties. I think that DJ should sue the ISP for that.
I'm not sure why ISPs even bother having elaborate AUSs anyway. It's pretty clear from their behavior that they may as well just write "We have the right to do any damn thing we please regarding how you use our service. Lump it." It would certainly save a lot of reading.
yes, in america we originally had a country that was based on "innocent until proven guilty", where our court system was devised that it would let 10 guilty men go instead of punishing one innocent man.
Alas, our technologically-driven society has deemed the Constitution to be legacy-ware and decided that it's much easier and more profitable to declare everyone guilty and still try to suck profit out of them anyways.
Oh well, I always thought it was a pretty heartless industry anyways.
http://www.nakedandfree.com
I don't like having to compress or rename mp3s just to get them on the site. Could there be a workaround eg. with javascript, by renaming the file when a download is requested?
Setting aside the fact that the ISP in question disallowed mp3 content in its terms and conditions...
.mp3 files?
I work(ed) at an ISP, and you could tie up a single staff member all the time, dealing with requests from the British Phonograph Association (bit like the RIAA) asking us to remove illegal mp3s that had been put into customer webspace.
As a business, do you a) employ someone to spend all their time looking at mp3 complaints, testing said files to see if they are actually illegal, mailing the RIAA type body in question, etc - or b) simply have a cronjob that deletes
--
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!
Half-Price Hosting's Terms of Service include the following:
4.1.5. The storage and distribution of MP3 format files via the Company network is prohibited.
By posting MP3:s on Half-Price, you are violating their rules.
If you don't read the terms of service, don't be surprised if they delete your files. ISP:s have the right to restrict what they host, but only if they make it clear what the restrictions are. If this restriction hadn't been in the terms of service, Half-Price would be a god target for legal action.
Truly, this is a great service. And its free!
--
Actually you can't disclaim away liability for your own (or you agent's) tortious conduct.....This is a common misunderstanding and many companies try to do this.....For example parking lots....But this won't hold up in court.....They won't allow that type of disclaimer....You can only disclaim away damages that aren't related to any tortious conduct on your part......So in this context....If the webpage files or service is disrupted due to negligence on the part of the ISP then there can still be a claim, even given the disclaimer.....ALTHOUGH the second clause would function as a limitations on damages....THAT would be perfectly valid. Parties to a contract can agree to how to measure damages in the case of a breach.
Ok.....I also answered this above but I will here too :) **I am not a lawyer, YET, but am a law student**
The simple answer to why all companies don't use this kind of disclaimer is because they don't work.....You can't disclaim away your own tortious conduct. There are some execptions to this general rule....Such as with extremely hazardous activities, sky-diving for example. In that case courts have ruled that the nature of the activity is so unusual that a contract can disclaim away liability......BUT in most other contexts courts will not enforce such a clause. This is basic contract law (Usually taught during 1st semester)
I didn't really answer your second part....so lets try that now.... First this is under Products Liability law......Cars and most physical products can come under this category and can impose liability in the absense of tortious conduct.....The theory of liability is called strict liability....BUT drugs no longer fit the same model, becuase most jurisdictions have ruled that drug manufacturers can't be sued under a strict liability theory, but only for tortious conduct (such as negliegence). This is because the law has decided that drugs are so important to society that they won't impose liability absent some tort. And the law hasn't really extended a this model to take in software or ISPs......Mainly they really aren't 'physical' products....And damages would usually be economic in nature.....Not physical.....Products Liabilty law is mainly designed to compensate for some personal injury due to the use of some product, not some fiscal loss sustained. Hope that helps clear things up
And where did you get your law degree?!! Certainly not from my school. There are sooooo many things wrong with what you said where to begin :) 1st) The basic thing is that IF the ISP told you in their terms that storing MP3s on their servers is a violation of the agreement then it is YOU who breached....NOT the ISP when they delete those MP3s....2nd) You are actually trying to claim that deleting a MP3 of some music artist is like destroying the Mona Lisa????!!!! How to you come up with that drivel? The Mona Lisa is one of a kind....IE it only exists in that one form.....MP3s on the other hand, are digital copies of some other recording....The recording exists in some other form.....You usually can't even claim the MP3 is the original recording (I don't know many recording artists that record straight to MP3) 3rd) Even if you could establish that the MP3 recording was the ONLY recording of that music YOU still violated the terms of the contract YOU signed by putting it on the server....Therefore you would still have absolutely no claim. Stick to what you know (playing music) and leave all the legal issues to actual lawyers.
OH MY GOD!!! ANOTHER MONA LISA ANALOGY!!!! Are you people nuts???!!!! You really are comparing an MP3 file to a painting that is priceless???!!! Something that is a copy of some other recording to something that is one of a kind????!!! I already know you have absolutely no legal education but do you have any type of education at all???!!! Please come up with some logical arguement at least. You did say one intelligent thing....If you don't like the terms of service then go somewhere else. That's what a free market is all about.
Actually IF you install their software then you signed a contract......MS as well as most software producers have a screen detailing the terms of the software license and force you to hit and 'I agree' button in order to continue the install.....That is your signature.....Same is true when you sign up for an ISP over the web....They usually will have you hit a button saying that you have read and agree to all their terms. That is legally enforceable
Still doesn't even come close to a correct comparison......Are those Mp3s worth billions of dollars???!!! I doubt it. If they are the only recordings several things are probably true....1) this is from his own band or some band he knows personally and they probably don't have much worth beyond those few people (at least not yet)....2) Do you actually know ANY band that records to MP3?? So it is HIGHLY unusual for these to be the only recordings (and the only copies....the guy himself said he had copies)....3) He broke the agreement by putting the Mp3s on the server, so he would have no claim.
When I have learnt my job, the motto was: "no data loss at all"
/(.*).mp3 /sorry.html [R]
It is a shame, a privacy violation or whatever you'd like to call it to just admit that somebody could wipe out something belonging to you, even if the MP3's presence on a web site are not "pertinent" in some cases, the owner should be advised on such irregularities instead of just being constrained to such a destruction.
Why not just using this rule in the httpd.conf file ?
RewriteRule
At least this would be a fairer action against copyright infringers.
--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Vorbis is an upcoming alternate file format to MP3s. It's coming up mailnly because Fraunhoffer Institute (the ppl who are responsble for majority of the codecs in mp3) have started charging money for online distribution, hardware related devpt, etc related to MP3s
"...I said Innovate, not imitate!!!"
But in our world, when a new idea comes about big companies end up doing everything they can to gobble up smaller companies, and after a while our options slowly begin to decrease. With time, industrys that benifit from 'scales of economy'--that is, the unit cost of production (in this case, for a service) goes down with more users--tend to equalize around 2-6 major suppliers and costs keep competitors out of the marketplace.
We may be lucky. The days of the mom and pop ISP may stick around for quite a while. However, if and when these ISPs are taken over, and our choices deminish, chances are without a large base of compitition, the TOS for each company will begin to look exactly the same, and it will not be to our advantage.
As consumers we should not simply rely on market choice to protect our freedom, because more often then that, that choice ends up going away.
The Internet is generally stupid
What does it matter what type of file you have in your 10, 50, 100MB....etc... aloted space?
It seems you get what you pay for. So I do not feel sorry for the DJ. He (his friend) is just complaining that he didn't get his free ride.
DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
This seems like a very clear case of the few making life crap for the many. There are some people that think its fair and reasonable to distribute copyright material from their web sites. The actions of these people mean that the ISP has to try various things to stop being sued by the copyright owners. In this case they tried an automated process which then fell down. Unfortunate yes, a better process would have been to flag those accounts holding 'MP3's and to check them out. But the real blame lies with the pirates.
Example: If it weren't for car thieves we'd not have to bother locking our cars.
People that pirate material make things less easy for the rest of us, the honest people. We shouldn't have to put up with people deleting things from our web sites, but then, bands shouldn't have to put up with people copying their art around the internet to avoid paying for somethig they want.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
I left my moderately busy (2000+ visitors a day) site for a couple of weeks on holiday. 2 days after I left my ISP halted all access to my site, because of 5 perfectly legal mp3's. The didnt email me to tell me why it stopped, and the person I left in charge didnt have the neccersary stuff to sort it out.
By the time I got the site back up, after making a few trans-atlantic phone calls, I had lost 90% of my visitors and, TBH, I'd lost all heart in doing something that I loved. I decided to shut the site down. Needless to say I didnt pay for the month that my site was offline, even though I got threats from the ISP.
Unfortunatly I lost all control over the domain name, as they refused to let go of the technical contact listing. A shame as I lost out on a £500 offer for it too...
If you store your MP3s inside of an archive of some type (encrypted or not), can they justify deleting the archive? Especially if it might contain non-MP3 material? Can they justify "shotgun" deletions of things that violate your service agreement as well as things that do not?
.MP3 extension? This is *TOTALLY* legal for a word document from a technical perspective. Are they now telling me this is forbidden because their script gets confused? Will they delete my harmless word document that just happens to match a ".mp3" search criterion for deletion? This might be a perfectly valid extension for any number of file types (configuration file #3 for your main processor for example... or whatever).
.MP3 extension and a pattern scan of the file itself for some "magic bits", then defeating either of these techniques would probably render the deletion unworkable. If they just delete anything ending with .MP3, then they sure run a risk of deleting perfectly valid non-music files with .mp3 as an extension. That's just ignorant.
If this is a problem, change the extension. They have specified MP3 file format files cannot be distributed this way. Where do they draw the line? File extension? Magic scan of the contents to look for a pattern match?
What about a non-MP3 format file (for example a word document) with the
If they search for both a combination of
I understand the fear of ISPs - litigation has been brought agains ISPs for all manner of idiot things done by their clients. That is plain stupid. Cases such as that should be thrown out of court. But this response does seem like using a machine-gun instead of a sniper rifle....
Pleasure in the job puts perfection in the work.
There was never a genius without a tincture of madness.
Aris
I got a great ISP. Speakeasy.Net. May have seen them on Thinkgeek if you go there often, or perhaps dslreports.com. They're unbelievable--fast, helpful, fair. They even gave me a second IP address for free, and not only do they allow multiple machines on one residential connection, but they support it.
If you happen to order a connection from them, do me a favor and put me down as a reference. My username is Aciel.
Aciel
aciel@speakeasy.net
The process of deleting MP3 files automatically from a user directory is:
All this besides the usual stuff which is said in favor and against MP3s.
It might be their policy to disallow (among others things) mp3s, but I do not agree with their enforcement methods. At the very least, the ISP should warn you via email that the files are against policy, and then delete them if you don't do anything about it. Their current approach appears to be "shoot first, ask questions later".
Life is like a web application. Sometime you need cookies just to get by.
heise.de reports in this news item that German web hosting service 1&1-Puretec canceled a contract for hosting the site npd-aktuell.de. The site belonged to the political party NPD, which stands on the extreme right of the political spectrum, is generally viewed as being neo-Nazi, is under investigation for violating the democratic and free basic rules (bad translation of freiheitlich-demokratische Grundordnung) in many German federal states, and may be forbidden completely for this reason in the future. Puretec decided they didn't want the content, and canceled the contract - but they didn't (and couldn't) throw them out outright; they had to cancel the contract normally.
The reason for the cancellation is quoted to be the public image of hosting company Puretec. They are explicitly not responsible for content on sites hosted by them, so the decision was made voluntarily. If the content had been illegal (judged by German law), a hosting company must take it down as soon as they learn of it being illegal.
Generally, ISPs find themselves between a rock and a hard place: they want business, but if one customer's content offends other customers, they are in danger of losing those customers' business. Of course, taking down sites or content will put them in danger of losing business from people who don't like that...
-- H. Wilker
Since the TOS (Respondent's Exhibit "1") spells out that Half Price is the sole judge of violations, I'd explain to the judge that it's the plaintiff's burden of proof to show that my client had abused its discretion somehow. [The Florida Supremes wouldn't hear this one, because the TOS gives Kentucky jurisdiction.] But that would be after I made a motion to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiff could show no damage, given the fine print: emphasis mine
Then, if the judge somehow decided that damages could still exist, they'd be quite limited: Plaintiff's attorney already having advised him of this, there wouldn't be enough of a judgement to pay the attorney, so the case doesn't even get to a judge in the first place.--------------------
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
Although this individual is upset, he sisn't read his terms of service. PLUS, so long as the disk space is "owned" by the ISP, the ISP can do WHATEVER they want with the data on their disks (this is an unfortunate fact, which I have yet to hear anyone challenge successfully in a court of law). Anyways, when MP3s started becoming a hot item a few years ago, I came upon MANY web-sites offering MP3 files, but with extentions like .ZIP or .3PM so that you had to rename them after dl. Most of those sites explained that their ISP didn't want the hits from MP3 dl's or streaming MP3s.
So, tell your friends that they can always just change the extention of the file name to get around matters like this.
Just my $0.02...
"The box said 'Ready for Windows 95/98/NT or better.' So I installed Linux..."
Switch ISPs, immediately, and fire off a letter to the old ISP explaining what you have done, why you have done it, and why you will go out of your way to tell others to never use their service. If the ISP is a local outfit, you'll likely get a response, apology, and possibly even a rather favorable re-subscription offer if your letter is well thought-out and well-written. If it's a national ISP, chances are you won't get any response at all (beyond the form auto-mail). Of course, chances are equally good that the ISP woun't take any corrective action whatsoever to accomodate your needs (and may just continue deleting your files at will), so regardless of whether or not you put ripples in the pond, you're better off leaving.
Now, if your local selection of ISPs is too limited for this approach, and you're quite serious about being able to put your files in place, pay the local office a visit in person. If you can, get an appointment; otherwise, just go on in and ask to see the person in charge. The Internet is a wonderful thing, but it can't beat the influence of a visit in person. Show them that you exist, are serious about your content, and expect service from them, and even if it's a national ISP, you'll stand a good chance of at least getting -some- form of response.
$ man reality
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Interesting thread--thanks! Nice to see that most of the prospective Network Nazis&trade work for schools and corporations, and not so many for ISP's. Decided already that if my ISP starts that crap, I can live without a connection. If I want restrictions, I'll use one of the free dialups like NetZero. At least I would get the service I'm paying for.
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
Geocities does things like this too. They automatically deleted a file on my site called mp3.html .. all it was, was a list of my MP3's that I made using Winamp. Dumb.
Going to court is not really an option, nor for me, neither for most people I know: I'm not going to pay those exorbitant lawyer fees.
It all boils down to: RULE 1="the one who can afford the lawyers will win." I don't agree with such rules.
Fortunately, such kind of rules don't apply indiscriminately in cyberspace. It's rather: RULE2="the one who can make your servers crash and burn will win."
So, I'm counting on cybermobs and hackers to bring down anyone who wants to play by RULE1 by enforcing RULE2.
We can't count on the legal system to defend our rights. Only the second amendment can.
I think this hosting company assumes that _any_ .mp3 extension is a bootleg copy of
file with a
commercial music.
I mean really, is it too much to ask to save files that possibly
contraband in their eyes offline temporarily?
I guess their money is more important than their customers.
from their uptime graph, I found a website called www.timewarnerroadrunner.
No. An ISP should not be allowed to do this, plain and simple. A website I've been actively contributing to carries MP3's of our band. If we want to distribute our music over the web then we distribute our music over the web. If our ISP deleted those MP3's I'd sue their ass off. I'm sure I can come up with something. Destruction of intellectual property and highly priced art should do the trick. I mean, deleting an MP3 of (fill in what you consider to be music legend) is the nearly the same thing as carving up the Mona Lisa. The only difference is that the Louvre doesn't have any backups of the Mona Lisa on a Zipdrive.(as far as I know)...
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
In author-law ISP's fall in the same category as Publishers. This means they are not responsible for anythink there authors/ users publish.
Normaly mp3's bring in a lot of trafic. Thus the ISP's can charge you more. So, I don't see why they would want to delete your mp3 files.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
- if you love something, set it free; if it doesn't come back, hunt it down and kill it
Things like this really anger me. I am tired of isps, corporations, or groups, thinking that mp3's are illegal. An mp3 is simply a compression format for a sound file. When will they get, that mp3's are NOT illegal.. sigh.
I guess I'm just tired of isp's flexing their muscles. I had my flashcom dsl terminated without warning for running a site, after FIVE days of trying to get a hold of the guy responsible for canceling my account, I finally found out that it was because of a server, and was told that I had violated the eula, although, I had not once been told that a eula existed, or had I never agreed to anything.. But of course, they had me by my balls.. oh well..
Ennui
Ennui
"I walk in the air, between the rain, through myself an
Also, someone mentioned zipping up the files means that they're not in error now because the format changed. No. The format of the MP3 hasn't changed, it's still an MP3 not matter if it's zipped, tar'd, rar'd or otherwise packaged up. The only way you could get around this was to convert the MP3s to WAV format or something, since the TOS is very specific about the file format. This might beg the question, what if I write a game and package it up but it uses MP3 files for music. Am I allowed to distribute it on an ISP that doesn't allow the distribution of MP3 files? Hard to say.
I think the main guffaw here is that the ISP should have the courtesy to email the user informing him of what happened and why. Otherwise, an unsuspecting user could think his site was hacked or something. Of course, the ISP doesn't have any requirement to do this and any ISP that doesn't wouldn't be my ISP for long.
liB
This is not specifically related to a particular type of files but it sure could open the door for any ISP to scan for and remove any content based not on the file-type but the content. Read this and see for yourself what a bad TOS looks like. BTW, this ISP is RoadRunner owned by Time-Warner - if you don't like this type of TOS and don't want to see more like it then think about the AOL - Time-Warner merger.
Thanks,
Shawn M. Thomas
Information Technology Specialist
Even though it is clearly stated in the terms of service there is still something wrong with this policy. I know geocities and other free web hosters do not allow files with the extension .mp3, I am sure for them it is more of a bandwidth/storage issue but this guy is paying for his hosting and there is clearly nothing illegal about his mp3s. To unilaterally assume that any mp3 is illegal is wrong no matter what their terms of service say. He should definitly switch hosting companies.
A. Disconnected my service because I ran a tiny experimental webserver (transferring ~1 (yes, ONE!) megabyte a day)
B. Blocked all access to napster.com, including the www address.
In both cases, I received no notice of action taken (though in the webserver case a tech guy did call me the next day, i stated my case and they have let me run the server since then). In fact, they even denied they had blocked napster.com for 2 weeks after no one could access it any longer. So I'm wondering, what rights do we as user's have against having our service limited? Is it legal for an ISP to tell me what software I can and cannot run on my computer, granted that it doesnt impede their network in any way? I live in a dorm in case you're wondering, so options are limited on changing service, though I full intend on installing a cable modem once I find the time to make an appointment.
-
Since they are hosting websites for money, there are probably 2 reasonable ways that you can fight this: 1. Check the license/terms that you sgned up under. There's probably some clauses that prevent you from posting illegal material and gives them rights to delete any such material. Unless they have specific mentions of mp3, this shoudn't apply since they were your own material. In that case, its probably a breach of contract since they removed them. With legal action or the threat of such, at least you could get your money back for the hosting. (Note: if the mp3 that you made contain music samples of copyrighted material, you may not be able to use this.) 2. Go elsewhere. Check out other hosting sites and their terms and conditions to make sure they don't have such an assinine policy of automatically deleting MP3s.
Don't read this sig cause it's not worth it.
- White Knight of the Order of Mihoshi Enthusiasts
There is a very big grey area here though; the whole copyrighted music issue and who is going to get the legal grief, namely the ISP. If the MP3s are copyrighted files to one of the studios, whether or not the site owner has bought them, the ISP could, and probably would, be held liable for distribution and sued.
That said, this specific instance smacks of a knee jerk reaction to the recent MP3 related litigation by the ISP to me. Obviously copywrited files that are freely available for all and sundry probably should be scrubbed for legal reasons, but even so an ISP really needs to send the site owner an email requesting that they either cease and desist or provide the necessary reassurances that the files are legally able to be there.
There is a very slippery slope the ISP is on here with all sorts of potential connotations; free speech, data protection, censorship... If this had happened to me I'd be looking for a new ISP pronto and shouting about it as well.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
But how about the analagous situation where ISPs or network (transit) providers who choose to filter ports 137/139? All this does is prevent clueless people leaving their windows machines' default SMB shares open to the world, right? Helps prevent nasty DoS attacks, pisses off kiddies, etc, can only be good, yes? Uncontroversial, right?
Think again... (lengthy nanog thread)
--
If the good lord had meant me to live in Los Angeles
Also note that trying to get around the MP3 ban by zipping the files will just piss off the ISP more and incur the threatened $300 fee.
Plus, you might fall into the more than 20% download category with a ZIP file.
However, any other form of digital audio, including MP2 audio, is OK. So that's an effective workaround.
It's pretty simple. Half-Price hosting is budget hosting. They want to sell you the cheapest hosting that most people can be happy with without going bankrupt. Policing sites that have a lot of file and MP3 downloads is annoying, because 85% of those sites will probably have something illegal on them anyways.
So the only other option than switching to a different ISP is probably politely talking to them and seeing if you can set up an alternate plan where you pay $x per month extra and they let you keep the MP3s up.
I'm glad that my ISP doesn't delete my MP3s or software. (Begins knocking furiously on wood)
Gentoo Sucks
Is it not completely insane that a service provider (one who supposedly 'provides' a 'service') can dictate that they refuse to deal in one of the standard file formats of the WWW? What if I take an action against people stealing (say) a copy of some book I've written. Do all ISPs just wipe every .pdf and .doc file they see on their drives.
.html files. You know you can have illegal copyrighted information stored in them...
Looks like a shortsighted 'solution' will ruin the standards upon which the whole WWW is based.
Think I'll set up an ISP which randomly deletes
-->Gar
Gareth 'bigbro' Eason : "Big Brother Is Watching You!"
The reality of it is that you probably signed something somewhere when agreeing to use their service that they had complete control of the material you posted on their space. Now while I don't think they should do that the ISP generally has the right of way as far as most courts would go. However you the consumer has the power of O' Mighty Dollar and can really stick it to them by organizing boycotts of their service and going to a different ISP. Really this isn't that effective unless you have a genuine complaint many people would share. But, you can always try.
Written from The House of the Venerable and Inscrutable Colonel
If the TOS says you can't have ANY files in the .mp3 format at all on your site, they have the right to do what they are doing.
.MP3 files are illegal. This is not the case... The gentleman in question had a very legitimate reason to have .MP3 files of his on-air work, and .MP3 is the most bandwidth efficient high quality audio format there is.
However, I kind of doubt this, they probably have in their TOS that you can't have any illegal COPYRIGHTED audio/video files. They are simply ASSUMING (and you know what that means) that all
Can you do anything about it? Yes, you could if their TOS didn't specifically prohibit MP3 files at all, as this is breach of contract (they are denying you service they promised to give in exchange for what you agreed to). But that means getting a lawyer and suing, and with today's generation of clueless corporate-party hand in their pocket judges, you still may not get what you want even IF the TOS is on your side.
Better to switch to a more reputable ISP that doesn't use bots to delete stuff from user accounts. Any ISP that does that automatically without actually determining if the files are infringing don't give a shit about it's customers. You should take your buisness elsewhere, and encourage others to do so. Let the market put them out of business like they should be.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
ISP's by law can do whatever they want to your site. It is after all their computer...But traditionally they've stayed away from editing the contents of a users homepage. Because if they set themselves up as an editor of their user's content then they become legally liable for the user's content. I.E. if I decide to create a web page on Half-Price Hosting (that was the name of the ISP right?) filled with child pornography then Half-Price can also now be taken to court by the gov't because they've already establlished themselves as an editor of user content by deleting mp3s. That's why ISPs don't USUALLY do that sort of thing...they stay out of more legal trouble that way...Does any of this make sense?
Why not just don't patronize ISP's that do this.Many do not.The offenders would change or go out of business.
This is what makes me nervous about online file storage and services. Who says what is allowable? What happens when private files get deleted? Is anyone responsible? Who do you trust?
Well, I think it would depend on what the contract is with the provider, if it states in the TOS that all mp3's would be deleted, then they have the right to do such a thing and the person who put's mp3's on there should know better. However if it doesn't say in the TOS that they will automatically erase certain files w/ certain extensions without you knowing it, then wouldn't it fall under violation of Contract? Usually the contract would state the company assumes no responsibility for material you store, but unless they state they will do otherwise I'm sure it would be deemed illegal for them to do so.