Slashdot Mirror
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."
In the letter from Comcast, there is no mention of offering an apology.
Where does it say anything about you having to send an apology and an explanation? This is just a standard DMCA notification letter, which Comcast is REQUIRED to send in order to be protected from lawsuits by copyright holders. You have a right to send a counter-notification, which is a formal statement that they're accusing you in error. Usually you don't have to do anything about these letters, aside from the obvious step of not sharing copyrighted material online. This looks like a standard DMCA letter, ISPs have been sending these out for years.
"...Comcast request that you immediately remove the allegedly infringing works from the Service or Comcast will be forced to remove or block access to the works.
If you believe in good faith that the allegedly infringing works have been removed or blocked by mistake or misidentification, then you may send a counter notification to Comcast. Upon Comcast's receipt of a counter notification that satisfies the requirements of the DMCA, Comcast will provide a copy of the counter notification to the party who sent the original notification of claimed infringment. We will then follow the DMCA's procedures with respect to a received counter notification."
Since it is a bit torrent link they're talking about (if you go by the port number in the complaint) you could easily say that your child or something had to get 'the internet talk' and kill it as easily as that.
-EB
Do you ever walk alone like a drifter in the dark?
The 5th Amendment applies if you're being charged by the government (criminal charges). It does not apply if you are being charged by a private entity (civil charges).
If the company sues you, they will depose you or put you on the stand, and you will be (under oath, and under penalty of perjury) obliged to tell the whole and unvarnished truth.
From Verizon's news page, and I quote:
Verizon appealed the court's decision because it opens the door for anyone who makes a mere allegation of copyright infringement to gain complete access to private subscriber information without the due process protections afforded by the courts.
They don't condone piracy, but they want to cover their customers in case of abuse. It's a very reasonable position and it makes me glad I'm a Verizon customer(though actually they are the only broadband availiable in my area).
Yeesh, Slashdot has gone from merely sensationalizing stories to just plain making shit up. I can't wait for the next Linux Kernel release announcement, which I'm sure will end up saying something like "500 University students sued for using Linux; now in Guantanamo Bay"
There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
It looks like this user was using bittorrent. If you are using bittorrent, the only client you should ever use is Azureus. Once you have Azureus installed, also install the Azureus SafePeer plugin. This will download the latest ip addresses from PeerGuardian which moved to a new address. This should help keep unwanted users out of your box.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
Yup!
Look at what I have to block because of constant attempts by infected Comcast jackasses hitting my webserver.
Perhaps Comcast should worry about this more than what MGM is telling them to do. These are attempted intrusions that Comcast lets go without disabling (which they are able to do automatically).
66.130.171.0/24>80 66.189.242.0/24>80 66.41.0.0/16>80 66.131.84.0/24>80
66.171.26.0/24>80 24.118.53.0/24>80 66.131.98.0/24>80 66.44.125.0/24>80
66.229.130.0/24>80 66.69.155.0/24>80 66.130.145.0/24>80 66.171.148.0/24>80
66.130.128.0/24>80 66.130.102.0/24>80 66.63.82.0/24>80 66.171.201.0/24>80
24.118.11.0/24>80 66.65.30.0/24>80 66.131.138.0/24>80 66.120.58.0/24>80
66.131.241.0/24>80 66.176.82.0/24>80 66.130.20.0/24>80 66.131.183.0/24>80
66.130.178.0/24>80 66.130.20.0/24>80 66.44.252.0/24>80 66.130.252.0/24>80
66.130.55.0/24>80 66.130.66.0/24>80 66.178.17.0/24>80 66.48.151.0/24>80
66.131.101.0/24>80 66.233.252.0/24>80
Not really. The point is that you should provide a means for your ISP to 'cover their ass' in the event that they get 'requested' to do something about you specifically.
It would be nice to have a standard letter that lists the reasons that would be acceptable to them the presence of this 'criminal activity' in an area that they have legal liablity.
In short, the issue of copying music books and movies has no answer. So no one cares if you do or don't do it. All anyone really cares about is whether it is going to create a problem for them.
If they (the **AAs) were truly serious about stopping copying, then people would be going to jail for long periods of time for selling hard disks. Like how people in the USA (for example 65-year-old Canadian comedian Tommy Chong) are sent to jail for selling painted glass tubes that might be used for , ohmygod!, smoking illegal herbs.
[By the way, the news broadcast of Mr. Chong's imprisonment was followed by an advert for corporate love drugs - expensive pills designed to increase woman's sexual response. Ask your doctor today!]
Anyway, what Comcast is trying to tell you is that if you share files (and you do), please make an effort to come up with a reasonable excuse for them to ignore you while still collecting your money and providing service.
That's what this is all about.
Never sign something unless you get signatures from all concerned parties.
My wife is a teacher and they have to administer state tests every year. She tells me they have to sign something stating they'll abide by the rules with possible punishments including stripping the license to teach of the offending teacher. I try to point out to her that she's engaging in a contract that only has terms written for one party. She and every other teachers fails to see my point saying that they "have to" sign it. If it is something required by your previous employment, then it is already covered by previous contracts.
Lots of employers do stuff like this. They have you sign things to show that you've been informed of company policy. What is actually happening is that their legal department thinks the changes are significant enough that they are changes in your job, and they want to make them unilaterally. I'm not advising digging in your heals at every little issue, just be aware of what is happening when you sign your name.
Also, you shouldn't apologize for something that, given the opportunity, you would do again.
t
At the time of this post there were 200 comments, and 30 of them were rated +5, very few of them were +3 or +4.
Ideally moderation separates the good stuff from the bad-- and this fails just as bad if everything is rated 0 than if everything is rated +5.
I know folks might be saying a lot of good things, but try to separate the *really* good stuff from the *sort-of* good stuff with mod points.
Make the mod system work better. Create less mediocre +5s
(attached to this comment because I think it's better than +5s higher up on the page)
RD
I am not familiar with the referenced file. I searched my computer and did not find this file in my filesystem. I often get unsolicted links sent me via AIM, Email, web popups, and network popups. One of these links may have been clicked on.
Signed
Comcast user
Lets be realistic here. There is NO mention of Comcast giving out ANY user information. I assume MGM contacted Comcast with a list of IP addresses, Comcast is tackling this from their own end. Big picture though... How is anyone realsitically supposed to know what is indside a file before downloading it? Is a file name and an IP address enough evidecse to assume you were knowingly contributing to copyright infringment? What if you got an email saying "New Microsoft Updates" and it happens to point to http://somesite.inv/xfiles.torrent (remember, many popular email clients do not directly show you the link and render html).
Torrents provide an easy way for anyone to see the participating members. Of course the media companies have no easy way to see if you got the whole thing, 10kb of it or have been redistributing it at 100kB/sec for 10 days.
Usenet seems to be more protected for the downloaders as the only place logs are kept are with the individual news server owners. Any attempt at a media company getting the download logs would be truely a fishing expedition. The point of all these questionable methods being used by the media companies is to scare people and do it with the cheapest and easiest method. If it really did come down to a court case involving money and damages, they would need more evidence then an IP address and possibly a filename to get money and prove a point. Detailed logs of your file transfers and possibly even packet captures, exact timestamps, the file in its entirety as transfered from YOUR computer only (you could have been pushing out bogus data etc) and probably much more. All of this is already possible with the cooperation of ISP's but the bang for the buck is not good. They want to protect their rights in a civil court but want it done cheaply with no effort involved. The result is campaign contributions, FUD, and cheesy attempts at laws. The DMCA and the one proposed allowing them to "hack" into your computer stand out the most.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
First of all, this isn't new. I got one of these from Comcast back in September, which was 8 months ago.
:P
Second, it does not say you must submit an explanation and apology. You only have to submit something to them if you believe that the file was mistakenly identified.
The only thing this is asking you to do is stop sharing the file. Which is what I did. Comcast is not trying to invade your privacy. And they are most definitely not doing this because they want to, it's because the copyright owner has used the DMCA to force Comcast to notify you of your infringement.
I really wish the editors would look into the details of things like this before submitting a story. It's almost as if they want to post misleading information to make controversy amongst us users and start a heated debate.
Joseph?