Comcast Warns Infringing Customers Of Abuse

tm writes "Comcast recently sent out letters to DMCA-infringing customers, informing them of their illegal downloading transgressions. The notice clearly states that Comcast has been asked by the copyright owner, MGM, to notify the individual of their actions and demand that the downloaded file(s) be immediately removed. In addition, the individual must write a return letter, which consists of an explanation and an apology. It appears that if a valid explanation is given, such as 'I don't know how to secure my access point and my neighbors run wild on my connection,' then both Comcast and MGM will be happy. If the explanation is not satisfactory however, they may proceed with fines, termination of service, ect. It will be interesting to see how this plays out and if this will influence other ISPs to go after customers at Hollywood's request."

Comments

Re:Sounds like a good reason to drop comcast

[azuretek]

comcast dosen't monitor your usage, this letter has nothing to do with monitoring usage. MGM simply grabbed your IP from whatever file sharing network you were using and contacted us and we sent you a letter on behalf of them.

I work for the department that handles abuse calls, this letter is just a standard letter and comcast has nothing to do with it.

Also for those of you saying there are lots of spammers that use comcast, most of these letters we send out are to spammers. So quit talking shit when you know nothing, comcast has done nothing wrong and maybe you should all actually read a letter to find out what BS this story is.

Re:Goodbye Comcast...

[TyrranzzX]

I also don't remember any part in the constitution that said congress could make copyright forever. I also think, if I remember properly, oh yea, the constitution explicitly denies that right.

Article I, Section 8

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

They also underfund the patent and copyright system so dangerously that now it's the courts who take on that responsability, and ultimately, the person with the most $$$ wins.

....

Ahh fuck it. Go read some books you Neo-con nazi-flag totin' motherfucka. Mabye if you actually activly educated yourself on a regular basis you wouldn't end up posting up such stupid remarks, and people like me wouldn't have to spend time correcting them. Unless of course, you want our country to degrade into the 7th circle of hell.

http://cyberlaw-temp.stanford.edu/freeculture.pdf

Start there.

And if ya wanna know where it's goin, go listen to some TFTA

http://www.theafternow.com/listen.php

Start from #1. The archeologies are particularily interesting.

Re:Goodbye Comcast...

[smc13]

"And I'm sick of people using the word "steal" when what they mean is "make unauthorized copies". There is a significant difference both in the semantics and in the real world effects of these actions." Ok, so what is the difference between stealing and making unauthorized copies? It seems to me they are the same and I bet the courts see them as the same as well. When a person illegally downloads a movie how isn't it stealing?

Re:Goodbye Comcast...

[DroopyStonx]

I'm sick of people thinking that ISPs can do whatever the hell they want just because "it's their network."

Sorry, but I have a right to privacy. If I ever catch my ISP spying on shit I do, I'm cancelling immediately. The reason why ISPs *think* (keyword: think) they can get away with it is because people are SHEEP and do nothing about it. I'm sure you're the same type of idiot who supports the Patriot Act too, am I right? I think I am. Sacrifice some privacy for the law, huh?

Nobody gives a shit about their right to privacy anymore. It's all about "well if you steal then you should pay the penalty!" Well, if you didn't spy on me, then you wouldn't know what I download! People say "well they monitor certain ports", but that's bullshit as every major P2P client has the ability to change the port.

So what?

[poptones]

Not to sound completely cold hearted, but so what if "Millions of children are exploited for sexual purposes every year?" This was happening before the internet - if anything, the internet makes it EASIER to find the people doing the exploitation. If the law had any logic to it at all, posting trophy shots would be protected speech - encourage the sick fuckers to share their images and make themselves vulnerable.

There is no valid legal reason to take a camcorder into a movie theater and post the video for download. It might fun. It might be easy. But, it's not defensible as a liberty.

Except only ONE person took that camcorder into the theatre. It was posted and shared and the act of sharing it is different than the act of camming it - again, even the law says so. Your argument in this case is moot, as sharing those files is the issue here, not creating them. As in child molestation images, the creation of the material represents the real crime - what comes of the material after that creation should, quite arguably, not be a crime at all.