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."
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
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?
...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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"...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?
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.
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).
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
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.
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
"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.
I don't remember anything about being guilty until proven innocent.
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.
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
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
> Only users who engage in illegal activities really have anything to worry about.
I read an interesting article this weekend in which various evangelical Christians (including one youth pastor) all encouraged P2P sharing of music by Christian artists for various reasons. All of the reasons given were variations on "it's helping spread the word" and "the Bible says that you shouldn't be concerned with money," which pretty well mirrors the "it's free advertising" and "rock stars already have enough money" logic that most file traders share.
When I started typing this, I had some point in mind about how when even evangelical Christians can ignore IP laws ("thou shalt not steal" being the original DMCA) without a second thought, media companies are definitely in trouble. I completely lost track of how to make that point, so feel free to mod me (-1, interesting, but only vaguely related, coherent, or on-topic).
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.
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
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?