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."
Hello Verizon.
They seem to be the only one standing up for their customers' rights.
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.
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.
http://siokaos.org/
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.
Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
So if you write back, give them a crapy excuse "sorry, I didnt know kazaa was bad" They have proof in writing. PROOF IN WRITING. That you admited to violating the law. Anyone see something wrong with this??
How this for a letter: "Yes, I might have said content, I apologize if I do. Why I have it? I plead the 5th"
snowulf.com
In the letter from Comcast, there is no mention of offering an apology.
Dir Corporate Whores,
I apologize for being such a cheap bastard but I just can't see myself paying 9 dollars for a movie ticket, 5 dollars for a popcorn, and 4 dollars for a pop.
I also apologize for not being willing to wait 6-8 months for a movie to be released to video and dvd as I am such a lazy fool that I do not want to spend the time or money involved in walking or driving to the video store.
Most of all... I am quite sorry for getting caught, I promise you that that will not happen again.
Sincerely,
A. Nonymous
P.S. I do not agree with or support any of what I just wrote in this hypothetical and mythical letter.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
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.
.sig: file not found
Heck they were almost DisneyCast!
They're probably playing establishing a track record to appease their next Hollywood acquisition target.
Getting a letter from your isp telling you have no privacy, or being accused of downloading "Walking Tall"? Geesh, if you are going to pirate movies, choose good ones. No one, but a fool breaks into a jewlery store and steals the cubic zirconium.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
What seems funny to me is that I have know about 15 people who download gigs of crap a week, and each one of them thinks that BitTorrent is untraceable. They give me excuses like "The packets don't have the file name information", among others. I tell them all the time that thier only real protection is thier isp's willingness (or lack thereof) of getting involved.
I just type my sig in the reply form...
Dear Comcast and MGM,
Chewbacca defense!
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
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?
Yea exactly .. Comcast being one of the biggest distributers of video media .. they are losing 'profits' by allowing u to serve those files. Interesting to see that bittorrent was the method of distribution .. I wonder if you can get away with sending only parts of a file :)
...it appears that if a valid explanation is given (ie. I don't know how to secure my access point and my neighbors run wild on my connection...) then both Comcast and the copyright owner will be happy.
There's nothing in the letter that leads to this conclussion. They say:
"Comcast will provide a copy of the counter notification to the party who sent the original notification of claimed infringement. We will them follow the DMCA's procedures with respect to a received counter notification ".
Any lawyer out there who can specify the DMCA's procedures in such a case? Does pleading ignorant work? It would be too easy
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..
--- [Insert intresting Sig here]
Is this not just a sneaky way of getting ISP's to give them user information? Rather than going through the courts and doing it legally (and facing the risk of failure), recording associations sneakily do it like this - they get the info they want, and the desired effect- bit more fear, and less file trading.
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.
I refuse to apologize for something I may or may not have done. I plead the 5th.
It can't be long now, we'll start with the disclaimers and all... I can just imagine it:
"By accessing this node you indicate that you are not now, nor have you ever been a law enforcement agent, postal worker, or employee of any Media corporation engaged in interstate commerce, nor are employed by any such organization."
More work for the lawyers, YIPPEE!
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
"So sorry. My bad. --con$umer"
[
Once more I apologize for my ruthless actions on the internet, and beg your forgiveness, ________________.
Sincerely,
Joe Schmoe, Downloader
BTW I really, really, really, really hate the lameness filter.
ECT!?! I can't believe they can arbitrarily pursue punishments of this magnitude. How can they use ECT without a trial or a hearing at the least. Yet more proof that the US justice system has been perveted by our corporations.
Hell, governments can't use ECT on convicts in most first-world countries and we'll let fscking cable companies do it.
Hate me!
I know a guy on Cox that got one of these last Wednesday too. It was from BayTSP. It quotes no law other than vaguely referring to the DMCA. They shut his service off cause he wasn't home to see the email within the 24 hour period they gave him to respond. He played dumb and told them he had wireless and didn't know how to secure his WAP. They told him they'd turn his service back on after he went home and made sure BITTORRENT was OFF all his computers.
BT is legal and I use it for Linux transfers.
They included a report that appeared generated by one of their spiders and was no proof of him doing anything far as I'm concerned. It was meant to scare him.
Also, the District of Colunbia v RIAA on Dec 20 2003, ruled transitory data across a network is NOT subject to the takedown provisions of the DMCA and as such, they have no right to discontinue his service. It's like making the phone company disconnect your phone for making an illegal phone call (which they can't do). Same thing.
The guy I know, didn't even go home. He called them back an hour later and told them, 'Nope, nothing there' and they turned it back on with Cox blaming his neighbors.
Seriously, I have 3 or 4 options right now for broadband. If comcast is going to monitor my usage then I'll decide to go elsewhere for service. The only way they'll stop this kind of activity is if they lose customers by doing it.
mp3's are only for those with bad memories
It's actually intereting -- given Verizon's victories, why would Comcast play DMCA ball for MGM?
Could it have anything to do with Comcast's (recently abandoned) bid for Disney? And Disney-MGM Studios?
Playing megamedia connect-the-dots is fun!
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
"...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?
If more ISPs just assigned a dynamic IP address, privacy would be increased substantially since record companies would have to force ISPs to figure out who leased the IP address during the time of the infraction. Frankly, I think ISPs should not be held responsible nor accountable for the actions of their users, and in fact, there should be a strong sense of privacy protection among ISPs. Sure, you can isolate your traffic to specific ports and encrppt using things like secure-tunnel.com, but ISPs should not be listening in on you nor identifying you to ANY company. That'd be like your telephone company mentioning that you call 1-900 numbers just because your employer asked them. Our rights mustn't be trampled by these organizations for any reason. These companies should not be able to control DIGITAL / ELECTRONIC impulses that are shared, nor identify who is sharing what series of 0s and 1s. We need to grow up as a society and mind our own business. If what you're doing isn't working anymore, find something else. Taking away civil liberties to protect yourself is a gross affront to the greater good.
We are one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. Back to you with the weather, Bob!
Dear Comcast, Thank you for your letter. The file that you mention as infringing were collected off your NNTP server at netnews.comcast.net, and not via a p2p program. Your broadband sales information touts "watch moving on the internet" and other such features, I believed that your news server, and its content were part of these features. My appoligies, and I will miss the Comcast NNTP server when your shut it down.
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.
"Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions." -- G. K. Chesterton
I work for Cox Communication's Network Security department, and we handle hundereds of these issues a day.
You are found to be sending out copyrighted material over P2P networks, we get the complaint, and turn your service off. You call in, we tell you you were distributing the copyrighted gaybarebackporndivx.avi - and you promise to disable your outgoing filesharing.
We turn you back on, close the ticket, and all is back to normal.
-Imidazole2
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
As it stands right now, IPS aren't expected to enforce the legality of stuff traveling across their networks.
It seems like a major bad idea to start doing that, just for the hell of it. They open themselves up to the same charge as all the p2p filesharing apps---that it is they who should be held responsible, as enablers, rather than the individual who is actually breaking the law.
I mean really, if you were the RIAA, who would you rather sue? Some joker who has 50 cents in his bank account and 11k on his credit card, or Comcast?
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
"I ran out of gas. I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake, a terrible flood, locusts! It wasn't my fault, I swear to God!"
- 'Joliet' Jake Blues, The Blues Brothers
The government's moral compass is controlled by GPS.
In times of crises, they alter it to suit their needs.
Well basically its the same thing we have known all along. This isn't about "downlading" as the blog and topic states. Its about sharing or uploading files via P2P and Bittorrent. If you don't want to get caught be a leecher. Now you may have some misguided notion that its "only right" that you should be giving if your taking, but that's the suckers play. Don't fall for it. All of those people who will give you flack and try to blame you for the eventual downfall of P2P for not sharing are not going to be there to pay your $10,000 fine when you busted.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
"In accordance with the DMCA and Comcast's Acceptable Use Policy, Comcast request that you immediately remove the allegedly infringing works from the Service or Comcast will be forced to remove or block access the the works."
Comcast is demanding the file be removed from (The "Service"). I use Comcast and when did my personal Hard Drive contents become under the control of their Acceptable Use Policy?
If the file was placed on rented Web space on one of their servers, maybe... But to demand I remove a file off my personal hard drive because it is in violation of their Acceptable Use?
This seems to me to be a line crossed. If they've now declared that the contents of my personal hard drive are covered under their "Service" then I say Bring it on! That's a fight I'd morgage the house to pay for!
I'm going to install BitTorrent just so I can get one of these letters. I'm mad.
That was the first thing I thought of, because we here all remember the DMCA as the 'anti-hacking' bill. Then I RTFA and was reminded that DMCA is the Digital Millenium Copyright Act - which also includes some circumvention provisions but mainly deals with ... copyrights on digital stuff from this millenium, if I had to guess.
Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
I would guess this must be a very common response to illegal file trading charges. It's also about the worst, logically. The trading of child pornography is probably the best argument out there to encourage service provider cooperation to monitor file sharing.
The spidering/monitoring technology that MPAA develops today to take their movies off the net will eventually be used to cut off the streams of exploitive material. It's not like law enforcement has the budget to independently develop technology tools to do this stuff. Honestly, I would happily trade my ability to anonymously download theater-filmed "Walking Tall" files today, if it helps stop the exploitation of children in the future. That's a great trade-off.
"Don't you know you're going to shock the monkey?"- Peter Gabriel
I went to a private high school. Nearly our entire senior class went out drinking on our senior class trip. This was a school sponsored trip and created a problem for the administration. The "helpful" deans came to our class warning us that the administration would do something horrible to us, so we should draft a letter as a class apologizing for our transgressions and they would go easy on us. (I was not present at this meeting with the deans. Had I been, I wouldn't have let it happen like it did.) Our class officers wrote a letter of apology which was then used as a basis to pursue the issue as fact rather than heresay as it had been up to that point. It created a much more difficult situation for our class as the administration set their sights on expelling a number of my classmates. We had to get creative in order to accept discipline as a class. But, had we not provided proof in writing, I don't think they would have been able to really discipline us like they did. Anyway, maybe slightly OT, but this definitely reminded me of that.
What I want to know is in this case who initiated discovered this download incident and initiated the complaint? Was it some 3rd party P2P watchdog hired by MGM who then complains directly to ISPs then the ISP accuses the customer? Or does Comcast police all downloads without waiting for incident complaints from companies like MGM? If that's the case then unfortunately Comacst cutomers agreed to it on sign-up, as from Comcast's Terms of Service: "Monitoring of Postings and Transmissions: Comcast shall have no obligation to monitor postings or transmissions made in connection with the Service. However, you acknowledge and agree that Comcast and its agents shall have the right to monitor any such postings and transmissions, including without limitation e-mail, newsgroups, chat, IP audio and video, and web space content, from time to time and to use and disclose them in accordance with Sections 4 and 5 of this Agreement, and as otherwise required by law or government request. " ... and from their privacy policy page "Comcast uses personally identifiable information collected on the Service as necessary to render the Service and to ... determine whether there are violations of any applicable policies and terms of service; " I guess that's standard for all ISPs Terms of Service, and we all agreed to it. Don't like it, use the other broadband carrier in your area, oh, they have the same terms, oh well.
A friend of mine had his cable access turned off because cableone was notified that they'd downloaded Starsky and Hutch. When they called the company for an explanation they were told that if they signed a statement saying they had downloaded the file and deleted it they would turn their cable back on. When they said that they hadn't downloaded the file and in fact had proof that neither one of them were in the house at the time the file was downloaded. They were told the connection couldn't be turned on until they'd resolved the issue with the company investigating for the movie company.
They don't even have a wireless network, so it's pretty clear that whoever is doing the monitoring messed up, but still their only recourse is to sign a statement admitting to wrongdoing.
Needless to say they now have dsl and satellite tv.
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.
IANAL, but there are laws about theft of service from cable companies. These were passed to prevent people from sharing their cable TV with their neighbours, but apply to their Internet service as well. Saying that you have an access point would be admitting to committing theft of service.
What Would the Fab Five Do?
But, with BitTorrent, downloaders are also uploaders, that's how it works. And there's a nice central server for tracking, and therefore catching people. Using BitTorrent for illegal stuff isn't really that good an idea.
In fact, I'm quite glad there's a P2P technology that's easy to police. The mediacorps no doubt want to make the technologies themselves illegal. The fact that it's much easier to shut down a dodgy tracker site than stop a file over a decentralised P2P system may well save it from the almost inevitable axe.
I'm scared of numbers that can't be written as a fraction. It's an irrational fear.
Dear MGM,
I am sorry that I wasted 4 hours downloading and watching Gigli.
Anybody think about going after Comcast for violating USC 18 2511(c)? It states:
2511(c) intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection;
And more specifically 2511(3)(a):
2511(3)(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, a person or entity providing an electronic communication service to the public shall not intentionally divulge the contents of any communication (other than one to such person or entity, or an agent thereof) while in transmission on that service to any person or entity other than an addressee or intended recipient of such communication or an agent of such addressee or intended recipient.
Looks to me like Comcast violated US criminal ccode and perhaps 371 (conspiracy with MGM).
I'm not one for violating copyrights, but the DMCA is being used in other areas to prevent much needed security discussions and crack down on whistleblowers. Moreover, pointing out that a company sucks these days invites a SLAPP lawsuit. Maybe we should go back to the days of bang-paths and store-and-forward. If there are enough overlapping wireless networks in your metro area, you'd never have to cross physical infrastructure and it'd be virtually untracable. Store and forward's also a lot more difficult for some corporation to take over. It's easy enough to configure a program to listen on only one interface, so setting up your machine to provide a service over wireless only is pretty straight forward. Just a thought...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
While I can see allegations of copyright infringement, if the user was in fact sharing a copyrighted movie, I'm a bit confused by the DMCA aspect. No encryption was being circumvented (it was a camera rip), nor was the copy made from a digital source of any kind, and it's not even clear that the user is the one who made originally made the rip of the movie, so I would think standard copyright law would cover the situation - it was a copyrighted movie, he was allegedly distributing it. What provision of the DMCA was supposedly being violated here?
Here is a good one, if I pay for HBO on Digital Cable but I miss the Sopranos, then download it from bit torrent am I breaking the law? It's the same as using TiVo, or even a VCR. Of course comcast being the cable provider probably wouldn't like that. But how different is it from having a friend tape it for me?
Dear MGM and Comcast,
I am profoundly sorry for downloading bad backups of the movies I already own as per fair use.Also sorry I pay so much for my bandwidth choked account.I am sorry that Comcast has to invade my privacy for the protection of MGM, a poor mom and pop shop founded by a heroin dealer.
I'm sorry MGM works so hard and spends so much to bring us so little and uses their overpriced movies to attack the world.
oops,my mistake,I'm not sorry comcrap and MGM are sorry.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Actually, all Microsoft requested, was for them to inform me, offering a file named Windows_Source.zip was likely illegal -- by forwarding the Microsoft's letter to me.
But SpeakEasy.net -- the celebrated "geek friendly" (you can run servers) ISP -- shut me down -- without even checking, if MS' allegations were true (I removed the file the day before MS sent their letter to SpeakEasy)!
Trouble was, I was on vacation, so it lasted for a week... They gave me credit for the whole week after I cleared it upon coming back, but I am still fuming.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
You don't need a full copy to be infringing copyright. It just has to be long enough to not be fair use, and the DMCA has no provision for fair use, so maybe not even that.
Others ISPs are already doing it.
Two of my friends have had their Time Warner cable modem service terminated.
The letter that you were supposed to sign and return was not, however, an apology and explanation. It was essentially an admission of guilt... They wouldn't restore service without a signature on that letter.
In effect, you are screwed either way. If you don't sign the letter, you can't get your service enabled again. If you do sign the letter, you're admitting guilt (and signing it) so they can easily sue you later (the copyright holder).
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
It looks like the letter is about someone "sharing" a movie for others to access is the issue addressed - NOT the original downloading, as most here seem to be assuming.
That said, I think anyone getting such a letter had better go see a lawyer before they essentially write the copyright holder a written confession.
So instead of using the tried and true Wookie Defense you can now use the access point is wide open defense. That does not make sense.
Look at the monkey!
What I don't understand is why ISPs don't just toss the logs every 24-48 hours - they are sending out the letters to comply with the Safe Harbor provisions of the DMCA. If they deleted the logs as policy, they would be compliant with the provisions, and wouldn't be *able* to send out letters. IANACopyrightLawyer.
Another thing - There is no 'open' advice on EFF or Chilling Effects as to what to do when you get a letter. In my case, the file may have been something I shared, but I truly don't recall having the file listed at the stated filesize.
It would be nice to know what the hell to do, as sending a letter of any sort seems to open yourself up to a suit (which as we all know, I will win, because of resonable doubt and the fact that the justice system is fair and not based entirely on who has more money.)
ugh.
When is this point going to be leveraged?
I can name my fuckyouRIAA.txt file to The_Matrix.dvix and have my service disconnected. This is
a ridiculous position. Does a file name now constitute proof?
Get real, if the media industries continue with this crusade against sharing, they will negate any reason for most home owners to have broadband.
People dont need 1.5m to check their mail(spam)... And who is going to want to spend 50 bucks a month if the cant actually USE it.. ( remember the restrictions on VPN and such from a while ago )
Its time to adjust to the public's ( i.e. customers and voters ) demands.. Not continue to try to squash them.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
If you cant remember, then you cant be compelled to say anything 'incriminating'.
"sorry sir, but i can not seem to recall that incident".
Hey, it works for the thieves in congress...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
There isn't anything in the current copyright law descibing criminal acts for some one abtaining a copywriten work in a fashion thats not consistant to what the owner wants. All the laws i can find about it deals with making the copies and distributing them. I would be interested into were you got the downloading is illeagle. i know it isn't right and morally might be consdiered to need to be illeagle but as of now I don't think it is.
Simply downloading something doesn't violate the law. I'm pretty sure that is why RIAA hasn't went after those that just download and one of the reason why p2p networks are still leagle. RIAA has threatend to sue those that are just downloading but I think they would have a tuffer time then SCO is having with it's linux users. After all this isn't like walking into a store were your expected to pay for somethign then walking out without paying. You goto these places with expecting not to pay somethign and then find somthign (that should be paid for) made availible free.
I'm quite familier with title 17 of the us code, state and local laws might differ and there is a possability of a law I havn't seen yet. If I'm wrong (leagaly not moraly) then please cite the laws for me. Or at least tell me if it is a state or federal law and what state.
A good source for federal laws and case law is cornell's law site.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/
[Devil's advocate] ...do I need to be graphic?
1. Mr Pedo chats up young girl nearby. Maybe even gets a picture.
2. Mr Pedo makes a frivolous subpoena request, claiming that girl's IP was sharing his copyrighted something, using a fake ID.
3. ISP can only comply.
4. Mr Pedo never files a lawsuit.
5.
[/Devil's advocate]
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Rights? The right to trade a copy of "Walking Tall" recorded in theater with a camera (judging by the filename)?
Your insulated view may not allow you the perspective necessary for objectivity, but trust me, it is disputable whether or not an individual has the right to record "Walking Tall" in a theater with a camera and then distribute it. It is not a clear case as you would like to present it.
Would it be acceptable for someone to take an audio-only recording device to record the sound track for the movie? What if it was just a legal pad, and a pencil? Assume they know shorthand and could storyboard and transcribe it precisely. Is it immoral and/or illegal to transcribe, and describe the goings-on of the movie with a notepad and pencil? What if it was just someone's mind? What if Mr. Joe Hypothetical had eidetic memory and some expensive renderware on his PC at home. If he sees a Pixar movie and his mind, and software at home, enables him to recreate the movie exactly, should it be illegal?
What if you didn't have superhuman memory, or fancy software, but instead were just a great story-teller. Say you remembered the movie well and related all the details to your friends in an entertaining fashion. Is this copyright infringement too? Or what if you're not even a great story teller, but you remember the high points of the movie. Should it be illegal to divulge spoilers to those who have not paid? Are spoilers copyright infringement, do you think?
Humans already have the capacity to store, retrieve and relate information, you can't get around that fact! So the issue must be one of quality, right? The Valenti argument, that the "real problem" is that digital copies don't degrade. Well, what is the problem with recording from a theater? If you start with a degraded copy, isn't that great for the MPAA using that logic? If the issue isn't one of quality, it must be one of control. But where is the line drawn, when humans themselves have I/O and computational ability and when this is the direct root of human civilization?
If you pay for access to an idea, must you therefore relinquish control of your mind? That is what the argument reduces to.
Ponder TJ's words:
It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the mora
That's a long standing urban legend...
I got one of these letters several months ago accusing me of sharing some movie i've never heard of on a p2p. I called their abuse department and asked what the deal was and explained that I had never used morpheus or whatever the p2p was and that I never had the filenames in question. The guy told me that there were discrepancies between the databases that they used to generate the letters and the database that tracks their ip leases. Meaning... The ip they listed was never one that was assigned to me, and the letter was a mistake. The guy in their abuse department said that they are required to send the letters but to just throw it away and move on and nothing else was ever going to happen anyway.
Part of the reason that Comcast is playing ball is that they were ASKED, vs. VERIZON who was given a 'writ' and a demand for customer info. Comcast has been asked to notify SPECIFIC customers of violations or potential violations. Honestly I think that is the way the system is SUPOSSED to work, and if you ARE trading in illegagl copies you SHOULD get busted. If you own a copy of the source material, then they should be going after the people who downloaded it without proper legal right.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
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.
I know we all like to pick on the DMCA but you shouldn't just throw it in every writeup. These people are violating copyright law, not the DMCA. The DMCA is being used to force them to remove the material or else the ISP without sending a C&D or court order. That is the only way it is involved.
The usual movie piracy procedure is like this:
1. First distribute camcorder recorded version of movie
2. Follow-up with high quality 3 part camcorded version
3. After 2 months release divx screener copy
4. Release full DVD rip of screener copy
5. Release divx of retail DVD
6. Release full DVD rip of retail DVD
You can generally pick when and which version you want, it all depends on how eager you want to see the movie. At least this is what I've heard.
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?