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

Things that encourage less security are funny.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, the moral of the story is, if I'm pirating media online, I should leave my access point totall unguarded, with no encryption, or passwords, or logging. That way, I can just blame evil phantom wireless hackers and never get in trouble.

Re:Things that encourage less security are funny.

[j.bellone]

Dear Comcast,
This in fact, was a home movie created by myself as a spoof on the real movie. One of my children turned on this so called bittorrent and shared the file by accident.
By downloading this file, you are now in infringement of my DMCA copyright on my work. Please remove the file, and all instances of this file off your servers and the "authorized agent" that is claiming it's their work.
I expect a apology from both Comcast, and the "authorized agent" in my mailbox by the end of the week.

Oh man....

[siokaos]

Viruses? Fine by us.
Spam? Sure, go right ahead...
Non-DRMed p2p filetransfers? STOP IN THE NAME OF THE LAW

I guess this means I'd better clear out my queues/start encrypting things.

Excellent

[FattMattP]

This is a much more sane response than just filing a lawsuit. It at least gives the users the chance to do the right thing rather than bring the hammer down on their head like the RIAA has been doing.

I think the poster misunderstood the letter

[petard]

That's not what the letter says at all. The letter is based on the allegation of offering the file for download (which you do, when you use bittorrent).

You only need to counter-notify if you believe you've received this notice based on a non-infringing file. No mention of any letter of explanation/apology is made in the linked document, so unless the poster has a different letter that he didn't post he's entirely misunderstood this notice. Otherwise, turn off your torrent and let them know that it's no longer there. If you feel the obligation to make up an excuse when you do that, go ahead.

IANAL, but I don't think I'd offer any explanation besides "Thanks for the notice. I have ensured that no such file is available." unless pressed into it by further action from the copyright holder. Like talking to the police, ISTM that the less you say, the better.

So what?

[digitalgimpus]

What do they really expect Comcast to do? They simply abided by the law, and informed customers of their rights.

Note Comcast didn't assume guilt, they made it clear they are passing on information, and provide options of remedy as per DMCA.

Seems pretty clean to me. What is comcast to do? Just take a lawsuit and pass off the cost to all the subscribers?

Child pornography

[Fullmetal Edward]

If they can hassle people over downloading illegal files surely they could spend their time better and track all the people who have accessed child pornography.

I guess the RIAA and similar organisations mean more to Comcast then some little girl being abused..

Re:Goodbye Comcast...

[Call Me Black Cloud]

They seem to be the only one standing up for their customers' rights.

Rights? The right to trade a copy of "Walking Tall" recorded in theater with a camera (judging by the filename)? Backing up a DVD you purchased is one thing, but distributing a file, whether from a DVD or filmed in theater, does not fall within your rights.

The only reason you claim you're going to switch to Verizon is not to protect your rights but because you feel you have a lower chance of being held accountable for your illegal activites.

Re:Goodbye Comcast... (connect the dots)

[dspfreak]

given Verizon's victories, why would Comcast play DMCA ball for MGM?

Keep in mind, Comcast is also trying to sell you premium cable channels and video on demand. Any MGM movies obtained through p2p is potentially revenue lost to Comcast as well. I don't believe this would be a factor with Verizon, since they're not doing the cable thing.

Re:Dear Comcast

[Myrrh]

Does the Fifth Amendment apply in civil cases?

As shown by recent actions of the RIAA, they seem to be more interested in suing consumers (that is, a civil case or lawsuit) rather than trying to bring criminal charges.

I'm not sure you can use the Fifth Amendment as a defense if you're being sued by someone. You can be compelled by a judge to provide discovery (or something, I'm not sure I'm using the right term) and failure to comply could get you held in contempt of court.

I don't think you can simply refuse to provide any evidence that might incriminate yourself. If you could, I'm sure that defense would have been tried by many a CEO.

Re:Goodbye Comcast...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't remember anything in the constitution about your inalienable rights to break the law.

I don't remember anything about being guilty until proven innocent.

Re:so...

[J'raxis]

Exactly. Anyone who answers this is as dumb as people who participated in the RIAA's "Clean Slate" program. For those who don't know, this was where you would admit guilt -- to criminal charges -- to the RIAA, and they would grant you "amnesty" if you promised not to do it again and signed some sort of contract. Small problem with this is that private entities can't immunize someone against criminal charges; a prosecutor is free to bring charges if he so desires, and all you've accomplished is creating a signed admission of guilt.

If you're a Comcast customer and get threatened, I'd suggest just switching to another company and ignoring their threats. If you're going to respond to them, write them a letter explaining that one of their paying customers is cancelling their service and going with one of their competitors because of their threats. It wouldn't hurt to let them know you'll be recommending Verizon or SpeakEasy or someone else to your friends and family from now on, instead of Comcast. When they eventually connect the dots that "threatening our customers on behalf of the IP cartel = less customers = less money," maybe they'll take a stand like Verizon did and protect their customers.

This also sounds like another good reason to switch to an encrypted P2P architecture like Freenet.

Re:so...

[orthogonal]

As usual, the submitter and the editor didn't read the letter.

Parent poster is absolutely right. What's posted on Slashdot is egregiously misleading.

The Slashdot article states (emphasis mine):

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 [sic]. 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."

Please note I am not a Comcast customer and I have no relationship of any sort with Comcast.

Ok, point by point:

• illegal downloading transgressions and demand that the downloaded file(s) be immediately removed. : reading this and trustingly reading the words as they were written, I understood this to mean that Comcast was logging customers downloads. This has privacy implications, and it allows the possibility of mis-identifying files as copyrighted based on ambiguous filenames. But the actual letter asks the user to "remove works from the [Comcast] Server"; it's about files on Comcast's machine, not files the user has downloaded.
  
• the individual must write a return letter, which consists of an explanation and an apology : I found this particularly worrisome, as the idea of forced confession or forced contrition both recalls Maoist "reeducation" and Stalinist show-trails, and because such confessions can be used against their author in latter criminal or civil proceedings. But, once again, no, the letter only requests the (possibly) copyrighted work be removed from Comcast's server, and offers the Comcast customer the opportunity to write a letter to dispute the copyright status of disputed file(s).
  
• If the explanation is not satisfactory however, they may proceed with fines, termination of service, ect : No mention at all is made of any fines, termination of service, or in act any consequences to the Comcast customer. Nor is any mention made, as the Slashdot article implies, that Comcast will -- extrajudicially -- be itself the judge of the acceptability of the letter.
  
• influence other ISPs to go after customers at Hollywood's request : Comcast is doing nothing more than precisely what the DMCA legally requires it to do; no new precedent is being set, and it's the force of the law itself, not Comcast's actions, that will presumably influence other ISPs to follow the law. If there's a slippery slope (and I do think there is) it was started down by the legislators who passed the DMCA. not by Comcast which is simply and without elaboration doing what the DMCA requires it to do. Nothing new here.

Let me emphasize my last point: there is nothing new here. Comcast is doing what it must do under the DMCA, and it's doing what every other ISP has to do. Your complaint is with the DMCA, not Comcast.

My complaint is with the article submitter and, even more so, the Slashdot editor who submitted this: neither apparently took the time to read the linked Comcast letter (even though, to their credit, they did link it.

It's important that Slashdot and its readers rail against the all too common erosion of our rights, and I applaud Slashdot for doing so. But it only harms our cause when we waste time and hemorrhage credibility raging against straw men with no basis in reality. Let's salvage some credibility by Slashdot readers -- and editors -- admitting that, with this "article", we simply screwed up.

Re:Goodbye Comcast...

[flyneye]

Once again I say:
When laws are injust,immoral and wrong,there are no laws.When laws are merely a device for the powerful to control the masses,there are no laws.When justice becomes the criminal,everyman becomes his own cop with just,moral and right written as law in his heart. - fly n. eye

Re:Goodbye Comcast...

[B'Trey]

I don't remember anything about being guilty until proven innocent.

Who says they're guilty? This appears to be a case of "Hey, what you're doing here looks suspiciously like breaking the law and violating my copyrights. If that's true, how about you knock it off so I don't have to take you to court and prove that you're guilty. If it isn't true, or if someone else is doing it and you weren't aware of it, how about letting me know what's going on so I don't sue you and you have to hire a lawyer and all of that icky, expensive stuff? [1]"

If you object to this method, exactly how should the situation be handled?

[1] The cynic in me suggests that this is an attempt to scare people away without the bad publicity the RIAA got for suing 14 year olds. However, what's wrong with that? They DO have a right to protect their copyrighted material.

Re:Goodbye Comcast...

[Mr. Slippery]

Comcast has every right to make rules as they see fit and if they decide you shouldn't use their network to steal then you aren't using their network to steal.

Except of course that:

1. copying is not stealing, and
2. if Comcast is going to spy on its customers to see if they're copying things Comcast doesn't want them to, and to treat them like children ("now you apologize to MGM, Junior"), customers have every right to take their business elsewhere