Slashdot Mirror
US ISP Adopts Three-Strikes Policy
Andorin writes "Suddenlink, a United States ISP that serves nineteen states, has implemented a three-strikes policy. Subscribers who receive three DMCA takedown notices are disconnected without compensation for a period of six months. According to TorrentFreak, the takedown notices do not have to be substantiated in court, which effectively means that subscribers can be disconnected based on mere accusations. In justifying the policy, Suddenlink turns to an obscure provision of their Terms of Service, but also claims that they are required by the DMCA to disconnect repeat offenders."
If you are a customer of theirs, immediately cancel your service and tell them why you are doing it. that ought to send the right message.
...but the reference to the DMCA is horseshit.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Get a movement within their customer base and employ the classic school scenario where a rule doesn't work if it has to be applied to everyone. Start filing tens of thousands of DMCA take down notices for suspected violations. If their policy is as described, cutting service to that many people will put a direct stop to it.
> if you're incompetent enough to get caught three times, you shouldn't be on the Internet
Three accusations. Not three convictions.
You're assuming the complaints are legitimate. Your assumption is wrong.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
you subpoena your ISP for a copy of the complaint and sue the filer for libel, tortious interference, harassment, and lobby your state's AG to investigate them criminally for filing a false instrument.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Technically yes, but a "good faith" belief that someone is doing something illegal is pretty fucking vague. If previous court ruling are any indication, hearing a rumor about "someone" pirating "something" is probably all you need to justify yourself.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
If you are a customer of theirs, immediately cancel your service and tell them why you are doing it. that ought to send the right message.
That it does.
It tells them that they have shed another geek who clogs their pipes and will never upgrade his service.
Isn't that technically committing perjury?
Of course it is. That's why everyone with half a brain who's heard of these three-strikes rules in the US and abroad wants to rip people like this a new one--because they enable perjurers to be successful at abusing the law without court review.
Of course, if you were to send three bogus DMCA takedown notices to the ISP CEO's home--or to their home office--they would notice the fact that it's a crime and cry foul (or simply break policy and ignore them), but they are more than willing to enable criminals as long as they don't see the blowback themselves.
How would you comply with this without disconnecting repeat infringers, counselor?
You wait until the person is convicted in court of infringing at least twice, of course. The RIAA's word should not be sufficient evidence for considering a customer a "repeat infringer".
4. The methods used by copyright holders to identify infringement are not very reliable, so you get flagged without ever having done anything wrong.
5. Somebody who's out to get you makes a false complaint and your ISP is too lazy to investigate, so you get flagged without ever having done anything wrong.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Technically yes, but a "good faith" belief that someone is doing something illegal is pretty fucking vague. If previous court ruling are any indication, hearing a rumor about "someone" pirating "something" is probably all you need to justify yourself.
I think you may be understating a characteristic of the United States legal system. When an oligarch harms a peasant, the peasant is found guilty. When a peasant harms another peasant, or when an oligarch harms another oligarch, the written code of law is used. In the case of one peasant accusing another peasant under the DMCA, the accusing peasant is subject to legal accountability.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance