Slashdot Mirror
OptimumOnline Bans uploads to P2P networks
An anonymous reader writes "In disturbing news this week Cablevision's high speed broadband unit OptimumOnline has sent letters to subscribers warning that uploading to P2P networks will no longer be tolerated. Obviously bowing to record and movie industry pressure the letter includes a link to a page that gives directions on how to disable file trading on 18 P2P services from KaZaa to Xolox. If you don't comply, they will cut the cord. I remember not to long ago where OptimumOnline ran TV ads touting the ability to grab music from the Net. The story on this can also be read here."
It doesn't matter if your right, it doesn't matter if you've done nothing illegal, what matters is who has the better attorneys. The logic used here is the same that is used with gun control. Punish the innocent and the people capable of potentially commiting a crime. Assume they are guilty first, ask questions later.
The cable company capitulated because the legal expenses to fight the threat of legal action is more than sending out a letter to each user. It's really that simple. If this isn't a SURE sign our legal system needs a review, then I don't know what is.
cluge
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
This may seem heavy-handed, but most of the stuff they're uploading is probably copyrighted, and hence illegal to share. So, really all the ISP is doing is banning people from breakng the law. Just because you don't agree with a law doesn't make it ok to break it with impunity - if that was the case, nobody would drive the speed limit.
At my present job, we recieve DMCA violation tickets sent to us, which include the ip address of the customer that was sharing files. We then track down the customer based on the ARP logs and issue them a letter notifying them that they are in violation of our Acceptable Use Policy which prohibits the usage of servers on a residential service, as well as our clauses that allow us to terminate a customers service. If we recieve 3 DCMA tickets from a particular customer we permanetly terminate their service. On a side note, due to the asynchrous nature of most cable modem service, as well as the fact that a node is essentially a LAN, I can certainly understand the concern about people constantly uploading files. Saturating the forward path can cause problems with download traffic as TCP requires ACK packets to be sent stating that a packet has reached it's destination, if the ACK packet is not recieved the packet needs to be re-transmited. So the next time you think your not causing any problems for anyone when you spent the last 2 weeks on Kazaa allowing people to leech files think again.
I've been reading Lawrence Lessig's _The Future of Ideas_ and he talked about this and made it clear why it would happen and the inevitability of it. Cable is the closed network of our time. There are far too many controls on it. I wonder how it is that the network providers are so short-sighted that they believe that this model is the way to go.
As for peer-to-peer and that it trades only illegal stuff, well that's hogwash. Yes, p2p is being used for a lot of file sharing right now and most of it is still protected by (an outrageous system of) copyrights. But p2p is an infant and there is no way to tell what it will be used for in even one year's time. I bet that p2p users will outwit the cable companies, bypass them and, unless they open their networks, make them irrelevant.
What will come in the place of cable. Hell, I don't know, but the cable industries stands of today feel a lot like aol's work of yesterday. Aol's dying. Cable will be next. Something else will take its place.
Until then, if you've got access to dsl and you value openness, call Verizon or whoever. The phone companies are the only ones who have to leave things open. Though, that might change. Things are getting creepy under the Generalisimo Bush. Egad.
Yeah, I'm as old as my UID would suggest.
We recieve a list of copyright materials that were sucessfully downloaded from the individual.
That's kind of surprising, because that could be illegal, for whoever's doing the downloading. But I wouldn't put it past anyone...
As the law currently stands, we have to uphold the request of the copyright holder, and if we don't do this then we can have legal action brought against us.
ROFL. You don't have to uphold the request in this case. (And you can have legal action brought against you either way; the DMCA can't prevent that.) I think you're confused about the infringement liability exemptions. You might want to take a look at this.
But to summarize:
Yes, an ISP only has DMCA immunity from liability for infringement of copyright involving content stored on their servers if they designate an agent, comply with notice & counter-notice time limits, etc. That's probably what you're thinking of. See USC 17 Ch. 5 S 512(c).
But that's irrelevant, because we're not talking about content stored on the ISP's servers.
The ISP has blanket immunity for content that passes through their network but isn't stored there more than transiently. This is covered a couple of paragraphs up in S 512(a). (Notices could be involved, but only if a proxy is maintaining content that has been removed at the source; and we're not likely to find an inward transparent proxy on a network with an AUP that prohibits servers. =)
If you don't like the law, I would suggest contacting your senator.
Heh. And if my ISP constantly tries to cover their ass at my expense (but can't even get that right, since they don't seem to know where their ass it), then who do I contact? Their shareholders? =)