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."
Optimum Online doesn't seem to have a good method of tracking or enforcing these rules. I've been running servers off my home OOL cable connection for over a year, and they've never said a thing, though I've contacted technical support for other unrelated issues.
Anyone else have any problems with running servers on Optimum Online? I'm running POP/SMTP/HTTPS/SSH services for my own use.
I'd be interesting to hear stories from people who have been told to shut down servers or reduce their bandwidth usage.
Okay, it does make a difference on cable modems, but not on 56K or DSL.
For DSL, I'm paying for a constant speed anyway, and they damn well better let me use it.
For 56K, nobody cares.
It sounds like they're blocking the ports these programs use for upstream...
"We want you to stay online and stay protected while enjoying the best performance of Optimum Online high-speed Internet access"
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't "Internet access" pertain to full use of all ports? Wouldn't they have to be selling "Web, e-mail, and IRC" access or something to block ports?
Banaaaana!
..let me tell you the service level has dropped off so much it is ridiculous.
First they have been running "brown-outs" in Brookhaven township (Suffolk County, NY.)
Second the Helpless Desk has been telling people to turn of and especially DISCONNECT their routers when they call for outages. They do not explain themselves they simply tell people to disconnect the equipment. Then when the problem is not resolved they tell the customer to leave the Router out of the mix and wait a while. "Do not hook the router back up.," they implore.
Third, and this is just heinous, the cable technicians have been "chopping the lines" of customers they suspect have either extra cable runs, or (God forbid) who have Satellite Dishes. I live in Farmingville and not only has this happened to 6 (SIX) of my neighbors but one of those fukkers was in my yard when they were supposed to be working across the street. My wife confronted the guy and he told her that satellites were unreliable and "anyting" can happen to them and that she should consider going back to cable. I came out and exlained that if he didn;t get off my property I'd bury him in it. I took his plate number and Van number and Cablevision has denied he was even in the neighborhood. We are pressing charges along with our neighbor's who's Sat Dish lines he cut. I doubt we have a rogue installer.
As soon as DSL is on this block we're switching.
This
Very, very few. I'd rather have 10Mbit down/1Mbit up for $30.00 than swith to DSL that's a fraction of that speed for twice the price. For most of us, having fast Internet access is about more than just being able to download music/movies/pr0n from P2P apps.
Are you being sarcastic? I do not believe these two are related in any way shape or form but I'll bite anyway.
Guns have tons of legitimate uses that cannot be carried out with any other tool: hunting, sport shooting, defense.
You mean no other tool if you want to sit on your lazy ass up in a tree stand and hope something comes within 100 yards of you. I have nothing against hunting with a gun, just trying to show a different viewpoint.
Yes, obviously sport shooting as that does require a gun but the others are bull. You can hunt with many tools like arrows, traps, spears, rod and reel, sling shot, knife, stun gun etc... Might be a little harder from a distance but people have been using these for thousands of years and still do, well not the stun gun.
P2P networks have no legitimate uses at all that cannot be (better!) carried out with another tool.
Just because a tool might seem better for what you are doing does not make it better for everyone. I have downloaded and upload gigs worth of car pictures, street racing videos, local track racing videos, and amature videos (not porn either) from P2P, all non MPAA/RIAA and free to distibute. Where else can I find a repostitory of these things? Where else can I post and share my material with others and NOT have to go through a third party commercial entity that charges per GB or can hold a few GB's of material for as cheap as P2P can do from my home PC? Add that it be non centralized and searchable for everyone to use freely and participate. Sure I can search around with Google and find stuff on web pages here and there, some on usenet and very little on IRC but all of these combined are many orders below what I can find on P2P.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
I got SSH running, I'd be very pissed if they felt the need to disable that. I've had trouble with port 80 tho...
I'd like to start a freenet node, do they mention anything about that?
-- taking over the world, we are.
Um, why in the world would a songwriter get $0.08 for distribution of a song by US law ?!?
:
I can understand if the RIAA, or some guild or union has a rule or a bylaw to that effect. But that doesn't make sense to me for two reasons.
1) What reason would the Government of the United States of America have to get involved with something stupid like this. Not only paying songwriters, but setting a specific price by law? WTF? In 50 years when inflation makes that worth even less than it is now, will congress change the law to 20 cents?
2) Define a songwriter. If I write a stupid song about my trip to Walmart (let's call it Ode to Church Road), and then I perform it with my PC's mic, and share it via Gnutella. Does that make me a songwriter? If someone then downloads it, am I then automatically entitled to 8 cents? If I write a stupid song and then perform it, can I share the file loaded with keywords for porn and movies and other artists, so that unsuspecting people download it, and then rake in the money 8 cents at a time? Sure, by US law any time anyone writes a note on a napkin, that is automatically copyrighted, but that's a little different. That's just saying "you created this, so you own it". It's not saying "you created it, now someone got a copy you are owed $0.08."
This just doesn't make sense to me. You could be right, but can you provide any links or anything to back up this claim?
I did find a few links that say US law has a *CAP* on what a songwriter can charge in royalties of 8 cents per song. But that's not the same thing. That doesn't mean that a songwriter has to get paid at all. It just says that 8 cents is the most he or she can charge.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm not defending copyright violation. If I rip my copy of Dr. Dre's The Chronic to MP3 and "share" it. Then that's illegal. Regardless of songwriter fees or not. Dre (or his record label at the time, or someone who is not me) owns the copyright on that album. I have received no licensee in writing, verbal, or implied to redistribute his works.
But, your example with the indy bands is flawed. Many indy bands write their own music. In which case, they don't have to charge anything for it. If they want to distribute it for free, they can do so, since the $0.08 figure is a maximum, not a minimum (unless you know something I don't, which I haven't completely discounted). What happens if My indy band (let's call them "Don't Throw Knives At Me", I like that name) wants to do a punk cover of The Unknown Stunt Man (theme to the TV show, The Fall Guy, written by David Somerville, Gail Jensen & Glen Larson and originally performed by Lee Majors)? Does my shitty indy band have to contact Somerville & company, or pay up to $0.08 for every song pressed? Well, as far as I can tell, yes. But my knowledge in this area it limited.
So where am I going with this rant? If someone breaks the law, you go after them. Simple. If Don't Throw Knives At Me records a punk cover of The Unknown Stuntman, we either owe the songwriter up to $0.08 per physical copy that gets distributed, or we have to work out a special deal with them. But if *I* write "Ode To Church Road", and perform it with Don't Throw Knives At Me, then I don't owe myself any money unless I say I do, which is stupid, because then I'd have to pay income tax on what I paid myself and I'd wind up loosing money (
As to how one verifies that I didn't unconsciously plagiarize another song, that's stupid too. In this case, the burden of proof is on any accuser. The artist doesn't have to prove that each and every work they ever write is original. That's like having to prove documentation to prove that something I'm selling on ebay isn't stolen. It may or may not be a good idea, but it's not required. It can't be unless someone makes an accusation. And even then, I believe the burden of proof is on the accuser, is it not?
One last tangent:
I find this 8 cent law interesting. Until I read your post and did some digging, I was not previously aware of it. What I find interesting it the fact that it only applies to physical media, yet it applies to MP3s and other digital file based media. I'm assuming this is because unlike a radio broadcast (to which this statute does not apply) when you share via MP3, a new, permanent copy is made. But how is this different from me tape recording the song off of the radio (which is legal, I believe because of time shifting rulings, please correct me if I'm wrong)? Does a songwriter technically have to get a royalty off of that too?
Again, I'm not 100% sure on any of these points, this is just how it appears to me, based on the information I was able to gather and my ability to interpret it. Any lawyers in the house with relevant experience care to chime in?
Sources:
Texas Tech University
House.gov
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
by your comments you are stating that your $40 a month broadband connection enables you and you alone to tie up a full T1 all the time? How is it that your $40 comes anywhere near covering the cost of the $1200 a month line?
For those that use a P2P responsibly(login, download a few then log off) great. But the fact is the majority of the populous on the P2P networks have no knowledge of what a T1 is or how much bandwidth they are ever using. So it isn't a matter of the ISP allowing their customers to pull as hard as they want all the time. If this were the case all ISPs would have to have fulltime backbone connections and the infrastructure would cave under the load. But you would argue that your $40 a month would is enough to get all the phone companies in the world to upgrade their systems. They need to find ways to preserve some of their bandwidth for the other customers not just the P2P hogs.
I personally love the fact my ISP has blocked P2P clients I can once again load slashdot in less than 5 minutes. I shouldn't pay $40 a month for speeds less than that of a 28.8 modem because someone wants to come online and steal music they wouldn't ever consider buying.